Rapid Visual Screening 

of Buildings for Potential 

Seismic Hazards: A Handbook 

Third Edition 

FEMA P-154 / January 2015 

FEMA P-154

THIRD EDITION 

Rapid Visual Screening of Buildings for Potential 

Seismic Hazards: A Handbook 

Prepared by 

APPLIED TECHNOLOGY COUNCIL 

201 Redwood Shores Parkway, Suite 240 

Redwood City, California 94065 

www.ATCouncil.org

Prepared for 

FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY 

Michael Mahoney, Project Officer 

Mai Tong, Task Monitor 

Erin Walsh, Task Monitor 

John Gillengerten, Technical Monitor 

Washington, D.C. 

ATC MANAGEMENT AND OVERSIGHT PROJECT TECHNICAL COMMITTEE 

Christopher Rojahn (Program Executive) Bret Lizundia (Project Technical Director) 

Jon A. Heintz (Program Manager) Michael Griffin 

Ayse Hortacsu (Project Manager) William T. Holmes 

Thomas McLane (Project Manager) Brian Kehoe 

Keith Porter 

PROJECT REVIEW PANEL Barry Welliver 

Charles Scawthorn (Chair) 

Timothy Brown PROJECT WORKING GROUP 

Melvyn Green Sarah Durphy 

Laura Kelly Charles A. Kircher 

Stephanie King Nicolas Luco 

John Osteraas Kenneth Rukstales 

Steven Sweeney 

Christine Theodoropoulos 

January 2015 
Notice 

Any opinions, findings, conclusions, or recommendations expressed in this publication do not 

necessarily reflect the views of the Applied Technology Council (ATC), the Department of 

Homeland Security (DHS), or the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). 

Additionally, neither ATC, DHS, FEMA, nor any of their employees, makes any warranty, 

expressed or implied, nor assumes any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy, 

completeness, or usefulness of any information, product, or process included in this publication. 

Users of information from this publication assume all liability arising from such use. 
 

Preface 

In 2011, the Applied Technology Council (ATC), with funding from the 

Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) under Task Order 

Contract HSFEHQ-08-D-0726, commenced a series of projects (ATC-71-4, 

ATC-71-5, and ATC-71-6) to update the FEMA 154 Report, Rapid Visual 

Screening of Buildings for Potential Seismic Hazards: A Handbook (FEMA, 

2002a). The purpose of FEMA 154, which was developed by ATC under 

contract to FEMA (ATC-21 Project) and published in 1988, was to provide a 

methodology to evaluate the seismic safety of a large inventory of buildings 

quickly and inexpensively, with minimum access to the buildings, and 

determine those buildings that require a more detailed examination. In 2002, 

FEMA 154 was updated to create a Second Edition, based on (1) experience 

from the widespread use of FEMA 154 by federal, state, and municipal 

agencies and others; (2) new knowledge about the performance of buildings 

during damaging earthquakes; (3) new knowledge about seismic hazards; and 

(4) other then-new seismic evaluation and performance prediction tools, such 

as the FEMA 310 report, Handbook for the Seismic Evaluation of Buildings - 

A Prestandard (FEMA, 1998). Both the original FEMA 154 Handbook and 

the Second Edition were accompanied by a Supporting Documentation report 

(FEMA 155), which described the technical basis for the scoring system and 

other guidance provided in FEMA 154. 

Since the publication of the second edition of FEMA 154, there have been 

several initiatives that have advanced the state-of-the-art in rapid visual 

screening of buildings for seismic risk. One of these was the development of 

the FEMA P-154 Rapid Observation of Vulnerability and Estimation of Risk 

(ROVER) software for use on smart phones (FEMA, 2014), which enables 

users to document and transmit data gathered in the field. The rapid visual 

screening application of FEMA P-154 ROVER is based on the second 

edition of FEMA 154 and incorporates several improvements made possible 

by the electronic calculation capability of the device (e.g., site-specific 

determinations of the seismic shaking hazard). In addition, users in Oregon 

and Utah have suggested modifications to the FEMA 154 screening process 

in the course of performing extensive seismic screenings of schools and other 

buildings. 

FEMA P-154 Preface iii 
 

The objective of the Third Edition remains the same as its predecessors: to 

identify, inventory, and screen buildings that are potentially hazardous. 

Although some sections of the text remained unchanged from the Second 

Edition, the Third Edition incorporates several major enhancements, 

including: 

	 Update of the Data Collection Form, and the addition of an optional 

more detailed page to the form, 

	 Update of the Basic Scores and Score Modifiers, 

	 Update of the ground motion definitions, 

	 Preparation of additional reference guides, 

	 Inclusion of additional building types that are prevalent, 

	 Inclusion of additional considerations, such as nonstructural hazards, 

existing retrofits, building additions, and adjacency, 

	 Addition of an optional electronic scoring methodology, and 

	 Additional information on how to run an effective screening program. 

The technical basis for the rapid visual screening procedure is documented in 

the FEMA P-155 report, Rapid Visual Screening of Buildings for Potential 

Seismic Hazards: Supporting Documentation, (FEMA, 2015), which was 

also updated to the Third Edition. Note that per FEMA’s current report 

numbering system, the third editions of FEMA 154 and FEMA 155 are now 

referred to as FEMA P-154 and FEMA P-155, respectively. 

ATC is indebted to the leadership of Bret Lizundia, Project Technical 

Director, and to the members of the ATC-71-4, ATC-71-5, and ATC-71-6 

Project Teams for their efforts in developing this updated Handbook. The 

Project Technical Committee, consisting of Michael Griffin, William 

Holmes, Brian Kehoe, Keith Porter, and Barry Welliver, managed and 

performed the technical development efforts. Updated scores were 

developed by Charles Kircher. Sarah Durphy, as a Project Working Group 

member, provided special assistance in the development of the updated 

Handbook. Andrew Bishop, Brian Kehoe, and Scott Hiner prepared the 

illustrations for the report. Nicolas Luco and Kenneth Rukstales prepared the 

seismicity maps in the document. The Project Review Panel, consisting of 

Charles Scawthorn (chair), Timothy Brown, Melvyn Green, Laura Kelly, 

Stephanie King, John Osteraas, Steven Sweeney, and Christine 

Theodoropoulos, provided technical review, advice, and consultation at key 

stages of the work. A workshop of invited experts was convened to obtain 

feedback on the updated Handbook, and input from this group was 

iv Preface FEMA P-154 
instrumental in shaping the final methodology and report. The names and 

affiliations of all who contributed to this report are provided in the list of 

Project Participants. 

ATC also gratefully acknowledges Michael Mahoney (FEMA Project 

Officer), Mai Tong (FEMA Task Monitor), Erin Walsh (FEMA Task 

Monitor), and John Gillengerten (FEMA Technical Monitor) for their input 

and guidance in the preparation of this document. Ayse Hortacsu and 

Thomas McLane managed the project and Amber Houchen and Peter N. 

Mork provided report production services. 

Jon A. Heintz Christopher Rojahn 

ATC Director of Projects ATC Executive Director 

FEMA P-154 Preface v 

 

Table of Contents
 

Preface........................................................................................................... iii 

List of Figures............................................................................................. xiii
 

List of Tables .............................................................................................. xxv 

1. Introduction...................................................................................... 1-1 

1.1 Summary of Rapid Visual Screening ....................................... 1-1 

1.2 Screening Procedure Purpose, Overview, and Target 

Audience................................................................................... 1-5 

1.3	 Role of FEMA 154 in the Spectrum of Seismic Evaluation 

Tools......................................................................................... 1-8 

1.4 History of FEMA 154 ............................................................. 1-11 

1.5 Third Edition Updates to FEMA 154 ..................................... 1-12 

1.6 Rapid Visual Screening Procedures ....................................... 1-14 

1.7 Optional Electronic Scoring ................................................... 1-14 

1.8 Using ROVER to Perform RVS............................................. 1-14 

1.9 Uses of RVS Survey Results .................................................. 1-15 

1.10 Advantages and Limitations of the RVS Method ................... 1-16 

1.10.1 Advantages ................................................................ 1-16 

1.10.2 Limitations ................................................................ 1-16 

1.11 Companion FEMA P-155 Report ........................................... 1-17 

1.12 Organization of This Handbook ............................................. 1-17 

2. Planning and Managing a Successful Rapid Visual Screening 

Program ............................................................................................ 2-1 

2.1 Planning and Implementing an RVS Program ......................... 2-1 

2.2	 Selecting the RVS Program Manager and the Supervising 

Engineer ................................................................................... 2-2 

2.3 Defining the Scope of the RVS Program ................................. 2-4 

2.3.1 Determining Resources Needed for the RVS 

Program ....................................................................... 2-4 

2.3.2 Deciding Which Buildings to Screen .......................... 2-6 

2.3.3 Combining Level 1 and Level 2 Screening ................. 2-7 

2.3.4 Determining Screeners ................................................ 2-8 

2.3.5 Extent of Pre-Field Data Collection ............................ 2-9 

2.3.6 Electronic Scoring ....................................................... 2-9 

2.3.7 Updating Existing Second Edition Screening 

Programs.................................................................... 2-10 

2.4 Budget Development and Cost Estimation ............................. 2-11 

2.5 Pre-Field Planning .................................................................. 2-12 

2.6	 Selection and Optional Modification of the Data Collection 

Form ....................................................................................... 2-14 

2.6.1 Determination of Seismicity Region ......................... 2-14 

2.6.2	 Optional Modification of the Data Collection 

Form .......................................................................... 2-15 

FEMA P-154	 Table of Contents vii 
 

3.
 

2.6.3 Determination of Key Seismic Code Adoption 

Dates ..........................................................................2-17 

2.6.4 Determination of Cut-Off Score ................................2-21 

2.7 Qualifications and Training for Screeners ..............................2-22 

2.8 Acquisition and Review of Pre-Field Building Data ..............2-23 

2.8.1 Assessor’s Files .........................................................2-23 

2.8.2 Building Department Files .........................................2-24 

2.8.3 Sanborn Maps and Parcel Maps ................................2-24 

2.8.4 Municipal Databases ..................................................2-29 

2.8.5 Previous Studies ........................................................2-29 

2.8.6 Soil Information .........................................................2-29 

2.8.7 Using Resources from the Internet and Other 

Available Tools..........................................................2-31 

2.9 Review of Construction Documents .......................................2-32 

2.10 Field Screening of Buildings ..................................................2-32 

2.11 Quality Assurance ...................................................................2-33 

2.12 Filing the Field Data in the Record-Keeping System .............2-34 

Completing the Level 1 Data Collection Form...............................3-1 

3.1 Introduction...............................................................................3-1 

3.2 Building Identification Information ..........................................3-3 

3.2.1 Building Identification .................................................3-3 

3.2.2 Latitude and Longitude and Site Seismicity ................3-4 

3.2.3 Screener Identification .................................................3-4 

3.3 Building Characteristics ............................................................3-4 

3.3.1 Number of Stories ........................................................3-5 

3.3.2 Year Built and Code Year ............................................3-5 

3.3.3 Total Floor Area ..........................................................3-6 

3.3.4 Buildings with Additions or Multiple Parts .................3-6 

3.4 Photographing the Building ......................................................3-7 

3.5 Sketching the Building .............................................................3-9 

3.6 Building Occupancy ...............................................................3-10 

3.6.1 Occupancy Classes ....................................................3-10 

3.6.2 Additional Designations ............................................3-11 

3.7 Soil Type.................................................................................3-12 

3.8 Geologic Hazards ....................................................................3-12 

3.9 Adjacency ...............................................................................3-13 

3.10 Irregularities............................................................................3-15 

3.10.1 Vertical Irregularities .................................................3-16 

3.10.2 Plan Irregularities ......................................................3-22 

3.11 Exterior Falling Hazards.........................................................3-28 

3.12 Damage and Deterioration ......................................................3-30 

3.13 Comments Section ..................................................................3-32 

3.14	 Identifying the FEMA Building Type and Documenting the 

Related Basic Score ................................................................3-32 

3.14.1	 FEMA Building Types Considered and Basic 

Scores.........................................................................3-34 

3.14.2 Identifying the FEMA Building Type .......................3-45 

3.14.3 Interior Inspections ....................................................3-48 

3.14.4	 Screening Buildings with More Than One FEMA 

Building Type ............................................................3-51 

3.14.5 Screening Buildings with Additions..........................3-51 

viii Table of Contents FEMA P-154 
3.15 Score Modifiers ...................................................................... 3-53 

3.15.1 Vertical Irregularity ................................................... 3-54 

3.15.2 Plan Irregularity ......................................................... 3-55 

3.15.3 Pre-Code.................................................................... 3-55 

3.15.4 Post-Benchmark ........................................................ 3-55 

3.15.5 Soil Type ................................................................... 3-55 

3.15.6 Minimum Score, SMIN ................................................ 3-56 

3.16 Determining the Final Level 1 Score ...................................... 3-56 

3.17 Documenting the Extent of Review ....................................... 3-57 

3.18 Documenting the Level 2 Screening Results .......................... 3-57 

3.19 Documenting Other Hazards .................................................. 3-57 

3.20 Determining the Action Required .......................................... 3-59 

3.20.1 Detailed Structural Evaluation .................................. 3-59 

3.20.2 Detailed Nonstructural Evaluation ............................ 3-60 

4.	 Completing the Optional Level 2 Data Collection Form .............. 4-1 

4.1 Introduction .............................................................................. 4-1 

4.2	 Building Information and Adjusted Baseline Score for 

Level 2...................................................................................... 4-3 

4.3	 Reviewing the Level 2 Statements and Recording Score 

Modifiers .................................................................................. 4-3 

4.3.1 Vertical Irregularities .................................................. 4-3 

4.3.2 Plan Irregularities ........................................................ 4-9 

4.3.3 Redundancy ............................................................... 4-11 

4.3.4 Pounding .................................................................... 4-11 

4.3.5 Consideration of Building Additions ........................ 4-13 

4.3.6 Building Type Specific Statements ........................... 4-16 

4.3.7 Retrofits..................................................................... 4-17 

4.4 Determining the Final Level 2 Score ...................................... 4-19 

4.5 Other Observable Conditions ................................................. 4-19 

4.5.1 Damage and Deterioration......................................... 4-19 

4.5.2 Other Conditions ....................................................... 4-20 

4.6 Observable Nonstructural Hazards ......................................... 4-20 

4.7 Comments ............................................................................... 4-22 

4.8 Transferring the Level 2 Results to the Level 1 Form ............ 4-22 

5.	 Using the RVS Procedure Results................................................... 5-1 

5.1 Using the RVS Procedure Results............................................ 5-1 

5.2 Interpretation of RVS Score ..................................................... 5-2 

5.3 Selection of RVS Cut-Off Score .............................................. 5-2 

5.4 Prior Uses of the RVS Procedure ............................................. 5-4 

5.5 RVS and Seismic Advocacy..................................................... 5-8 

5.5.1 Overview ..................................................................... 5-8 

5.5.2 Audience Types ........................................................... 5-9 

5.5.3 RVS Program Types .................................................... 5-9 

5.5.4	 Use of RVS Inventories in Advocating Seismic 

Safety......................................................................... 5-11 

5.5.5	 Using RVS Results in Advocating for Seismic 

Safety......................................................................... 5-11 

5.5.6 Additional FEMA Tools for Supporting Mitigation 

Programs.................................................................... 5-12 

5.6 Other Possible Uses of the RVS Procedure............................ 5-13 

FEMA P-154	 Table of Contents ix 
5.6.1 Using RVS Scores as a Basis for Hazardous 

Building Mitigation Programs ...................................5-13 

5.6.2	 Using RVS Data in Community Building Inventory
 

Development ..............................................................5-14 

5.6.3	 Using RVS Data to Plan Postearthquake Building-

Safety-Evaluation ......................................................5-15 

5.6.4 Resources Needed for the Various Uses of the RVS 

Procedure ...................................................................5-15 

6.	 Optional Electronic Scoring ............................................................6-1 

6.1 Introduction...............................................................................6-1 

6.2 Changes from and Comparisons with the Paper Forms ............6-1 

6.3 Concepts in Electronic Scoring.................................................6-1 

6.3.1 Site-Specific Seismicity ...............................................6-3 

6.3.2 Soil Type Effects .........................................................6-3 

6.4	 How to Implement the Optional Electronic Scoring 

Approach ..................................................................................6-3 

6.4.1 General Electronic Scoring Approach .........................6-4 

6.4.2	 Refined Electronic Scoring Approach for Soil Types C and D........................................................................6-6 

6.5 Comparisons between Electronic Scoring and Paper-Based 

Scoring......................................................................................6-7 

7. Example Rapid Visual Screening Programs ..................................7-1 

7.1 Introduction...............................................................................7-1 

7.2 RVS Program Scenario A: Level 1 Screening in Anyplace, 

USA ..........................................................................................7-1 

7.2.1 Step 1: Defining the Scope of the Program .................7-1 

7.2.2 Step 2: Budget and Cost Estimation ............................7-2 

7.2.3 Step 3: Pre-Field Planning ...........................................7-2 

7.2.4	 Step 4: Selection and Review of the Data Collection 

Form.............................................................................7-5 

7.2.5 Step 5: Acquisition and Review of Pre-Field Data ......7-6 

7.2.6 Step 6: Review of Construction Documents................7-9 

7.2.7 Step 7: Training for Screeners .....................................7-9 

7.2.8 Step 8: Field Screening of Buildings.........................7-10 

7.2.9 Step 9: Review by the Supervising Engineer .............7-20 

7.2.10 Step 10: Transferring the RVS Field Data to the 

Electronic Building RVS Database............................7-22 

7.3 RVS Program Scenario B: Level 1 and Level 2 Screenings 

of K-12 School Buildings in Any State, USA ........................7-24 

7.3.1 Step 1: Budget and Cost Estimation ..........................7-24 

7.3.2 Step 2: Selection of Building Subset .........................7-26 

7.3.3 Step 3: Pre-Field Planning .........................................7-26 

7.3.4	 Step 4: Selection and Review of the Data Collection 

Form...........................................................................7-27 

7.3.5 Step 5: Qualifications and Training of Screeners ......7-27 

7.3.6 Step 6: Acquisition and Review of Pre-Field Data ....7-27 

7.3.7 Step 7: Field Screening of Buildings.........................7-28 

7.3.8 Step 8: Review by the Supervising Engineer .............7-37 

7.3.9 Step 9: Report to State Legislature ............................7-37 

7.3.10	 Example Level 1 and Level 2 Screening Using 

Electronic Scoring .....................................................7-40 

x Table of Contents FEMA P-154
 
Appendix A: Maps Showing Seismicity Regions.................................... A-1 

Appendix B: Data Collection Forms and Reference Guides..................B-1 

B.1 Level 1 and Level 2 Forms for Very High, High, Moderately
 

High, Moderate, and Low Seismicity .......................................B-1 

B.2 Quick Reference Guide ..........................................................B-12 

B.3 Level 1 Building Addition Reference Guide ..........................B-13 

B.4 Level 1 Pounding Reference Guide........................................B-14 

B.5 Vertical Irregularity Reference Guide ....................................B-15 

B.6 Plan Irregularity Reference Guide..........................................B-17 

B.7 Level 2 Building Addition Reference Guide ..........................B-18 

Appendix C: Review of Design and Construction Drawings ................ C-1 

Appendix D: Exterior Screening for Seismic System and Age ............. D-1 

D.1 Introduction ............................................................................. D-1 

D.2 What to Look For and How to Find It..................................... D-1 

D.3 Identification of Building Age ................................................ D-2 

D.4 Identification of FEMA Building Type................................... D-2 

D.5 Characteristics of Exposed Construction Materials............... D-16 

Appendix E: Characteristics and Earthquake Performance of FEMA 

Building Types Used in RVS ...........................................................E-1 

E.1 Introduction ..............................................................................E-1 

E.2 Wood Frame (W1, W1A, W2) .................................................E-1 

E.2.1 Characteristics .............................................................E-1 

E.2.2 Typical Earthquake Damage .......................................E-5 

E.2.3 Common Retrofit Techniques .....................................E-8 

E.3 Steel Frames (S1, S2)...............................................................E-9 

E.3.1 Characteristics .............................................................E-9 

E.3.2 Typical Earthquake Damage .....................................E-12 

E.3.3 Common Retrofit Techniques ...................................E-13 

E.4 Light Metal (S3) .....................................................................E-14 

E.4.1 Characteristics ...........................................................E-14 

E.4.2 Typical Earthquake Damage .....................................E-17 

E.5 Steel Frame with Concrete Shear Wall (S4) ...........................E-17 

E.5.1 Characteristics ...........................................................E-17 

E.5.2 Typical Earthquake Damage .....................................E-17 

E.5.3 Common Retrofit Techniques ...................................E-19 

E.6 Steel Frame with Unreinforced Masonry Infill (S5) ..............E-19 

E.6.1 Characteristics ...........................................................E-19 

E.6.2 Typical Earthquake Damage .....................................E-22 

E.6.3 Common Retrofit Techniques ...................................E-23 

E.7 Concrete Moment-Resisting Frame (C1) ...............................E-23 

E.7.1 Characteristics ...........................................................E-23 

E.7.2 Typical Earthquake Damage .....................................E-27 

E.7.3 Common Retrofit Techniques ...................................E-28 

E.8 Concrete Shear Wall (C2) ......................................................E-28 

E.8.1 Characteristics ...........................................................E-28 

E.8.2 Typical Types of Earthquake Damage ......................E-30 

E.8.3 Common Retrofit Techniques ...................................E-31 

E.9 Concrete Frame with Unreinforced Masonry Infill (C3) ........E-31 

FEMA P-154	 Table of Contents xi 
E.9.1 Characteristics .......................................................... E-31 

E.9.2 Typical Earthquake Damage..................................... E-33 

E.9.3 Common Retrofit Techniques ................................... E-33 

E.10 Tilt-up Structures (PC1) ........................................................ E-33 

E.10.1 Characteristics .......................................................... E-33 

E.10.2 Typical Earthquake Damage..................................... E-35 

E-10.3 Common Retrofit Techniques ................................... E-36 

E.11 Precast Concrete Frame (PC2) ............................................... E-37 

E.11.1 Characteristics .......................................................... E-37 

E.11.2 Typical Earthquake Damage..................................... E-41 

E.11.3 Common Retrofit Techniques ................................... E-42 

E.12 Reinforced Masonry (RM1 and RM2) ................................... E-43 

E.12.1 Characteristics .......................................................... E-43 

E.12.2 Typical Earthquake Damage..................................... E-44 

E.12.3 Common Retrofit Techniques ................................... E-44 

E.13 Unreinforced Masonry (URM) .............................................. E-45 

E.13.1 Characteristics .......................................................... E-45 

E.13.2 Typical Earthquake Damage..................................... E-51 

E.13.3 Common Retrofit Techniques ................................... E-53 

E.14 Manufactured Housing (MH) ................................................ E-54 

E.14.1 Characteristics .......................................................... E-54 

E.14.2 Typical Earthquake Damage..................................... E-56 

E.14.3 Common Retrofit Techniques ................................... E-56 

Appendix F: Guidance on Assessing Damage and Deterioration ......... F-1 

F.1 Introduction...............................................................................F-1 

F.2	 Guidance on Assessing Damage and Deterioration of 

Wood ........................................................................................F-1 

F.3 Guidance on Assessing Damage and Deterioration of Steel ....F-3 

F.4	 Guidance on Assessing Damage and Deterioration of 

Concrete....................................................................................F-4 

F.5	 Guidance on Assessing Damage and Deterioration of 

Reinforced Masonry .................................................................F-7 

F.6	 Guidance on Assessing Damage and Deterioration of 

Unreinforced Masonry..............................................................F-7 

Appendix G: Earthquakes and How Buildings Resist Them ................G-1 

G.1 The Nature of Earthquakes ...................................................... G-1 

G.2 Seismicity of the United States ................................................ G-3 

G.3 Earthquake Effects ...................................................................G-5 

G.4 How Buildings Resist Earthquakes........................................ G-10 

Glossary, Abbreviations, and Symbols ....................................................H-1 

Illustration Credits..................................................................................... I-1 

References ...................................................................................................J-1 

Project Participants...................................................................................K-1 

xii Table of Contents FEMA P-154 
 

 

List of Figures
 

Figure 1-1 RVS Level 1 Data Collection Form for High seismicity 

region ................................................................................. 1-2 

Figure 1-2 RVS Level 2 Optional Data Collection Form for High
 

seismicity region ................................................................ 1-3 

Figure 1-3 Map showing Very High, High, Moderately High, Moderate, 

and Low seismicity regions in the United States ............... 1-7 

Figure 2-1 Rapid visual screening implementation sequence ............. 2-3 

Figure 2-2 Input tool for determining site-specific seismicity using 

the USGS online tool ....................................................... 2-15 

Figure 2-3 Output summary report from USGS online tool for
 

determining site-specific seismicity................................. 2-16 

Figure 2-4 Sanborn map and corresponding aerial photograph of a 

city block.......................................................................... 2-25 

Figure 2-5 Key to Sanborn map symbols .......................................... 2-26 

Figure 2-6 Detailed key to Sanborn map symbols ............................. 2-27 

Figure 2-7 Example of property details from City of Calabasas 

municipal database ........................................................... 2-28 

Figure 2-8 VS

30 map of Alaska from USGS website showing soil 

type .................................................................................. 2-31 

Figure 3-1 Level 1 Data Collection Form (High seismicity)............... 3-2 

Figure 3-2 Building Identification Information portion of Level 1
 

Data Collection Form......................................................... 3-3 

Figure 3-3 Building Characteristics portion of the Level 1 Data 

Collection Form ................................................................. 3-5 

Figure 3-4 Photograph and Sketch portions of the Level 1 Data 

Collection Form ................................................................. 3-7 

Figure 3-5 Sample sketches and photos ............................................... 3-8 

Figure 3-6 Occupancy portion of the Level 1 Data Collection 

Form................................................................................. 3-10 

Figure 3-7 Soil Type portion of the Level 1 Data Collection ............ 3-12 

FEMA P-154 List of Figures xiii 
 

Figure 3-8 Geologic Hazards portion of the Level 1 Data Collection 

Form .................................................................................3-12 

Figure 3-9 Building with potential landslide hazard..........................3-13 

Figure 3-10 Adjacency portion of the Level 1 Data Collection 

Form. ................................................................................3-13 

Figure 3-11 Definition of separation gap between adjacent 

buildings ...........................................................................3-14 

Figure 3-12 Schematic illustration of floors not aligning vertically ....3-14 

Figure 3-13 Schematic illustration of buildings of different height .....3-15 

Figure 3-14 Schematic illustration of end buildings ............................3-15 

Figure 3-15 Irregularity portion of the Level 1 Data Collection 

Form .................................................................................3-16 

Figure 3-16 Illustration of a building on a sloping site........................3-17 

Figure 3-17 Schematic illustration of a W1 building with cripple 

wall...................................................................................3-18 

Figure 3-18 Schematic illustration of a W1 building with occupied 

space over a garage ..........................................................3-18 

Figure 3-19 Schematic illustration of building with a soft-story condition 

where parking requirements result in large openings.......3-18 

Figure 3-20 Illustration of a building with a soft ground story due to large 

openings and narrow piers ................................................3-19 

Figure 3-21 Illustration of a building with a soft ground story due to
 

tall piers ............................................................................3-19 

Figure 3-22 Illustration of a building with out-of-plane setback at the 

third story .........................................................................3-20 

Figure 3-23 Illustration of a building with out-of-plane setback where 

the upper floors cantilever out over the smaller ground 

story footprint ...................................................................3-21 

Figure 3-24 Illustration of a building with an in-plane setback ...........3-22 

Figure 3-25 Schematic illustrations of buildings with short columns 

due to: (a) irregular wall openings, (b) deep spandrels, 

and (c) infill walls ............................................................3-23 

Figure 3-26 Schematic illustration of a split level irregularity ............3-23 

xiv List of Figures FEMA P-154 
Figure 3-27 Building with multiple vertical irregularities: setbacks 

and a soft first story ......................................................... 3-24 

Figure 3-28 Illustration of a building without a plan irregularity ........ 3-24 

Figure 3-29	 Illustration of a building with the torsion plan irregularity 

due to the C-shaped configuration of walls at the ground 

floor .................................................................................. 3-25 

Figure 3-30	 Illustration of a corner building with the torsion plan 

irregularity due to L-shaped configuration of walls at the 

ground floor due to windows on two sides (visible in 

figure) and solid walls on two sides (hidden in the 

figure) .............................................................................. 3-25 

Figure 3-31	 Building with a plan irregularity (non-parallel systems) 

due to its triangular footprint ........................................... 3-26 

Figure 3-32	 Plan views of various building configurations showing 

reentrant corners and large diaphragm openings; arrows 

indicate possible areas of damage .................................... 3-26 

Figure 3-33	 Building with a plan irregularity with two wings 

meeting at right angles..................................................... 3-26 

Figure 3-34	 Illustration of a building with a reentrant corner plan 

irregularity ....................................................................... 3-27 

Figure 3-35 Schematic illustration of large diaphragm openings ........ 3-27 

Figure 3-36 Schematic illustration of a building with beams that do 

not align with columns ..................................................... 3-28 

Figure 3-37	 Illustration of a building with parapets and other potential 

falling hazards, including canopy over loading dock and 

water tank on roof............................................................ 3-28 

Figure 3-38 Exterior Falling Hazards portion of the Level 1 Data 

Collection Form ............................................................... 3-29 

Figure 3-39	 FEMA Building Type and Basic Score portion of the 

Level 1 Data Collection Form for High seismicity .......... 3-35 

Figure 3-40 Typical frame structure.................................................... 3-47 

Figure 3-41 Typical bearing wall structure ......................................... 3-47 

Figure 3-42	 Interior view showing fire-proofed columns and beams, 

which indicate a steel building (S1, S2, or S4) ................ 3-49 

Figure 3-43	 Interior view showing concrete columns and girders with 

no identifiable shear walls, which indicate a concrete 

moment frame (C1) .......................................................... 3-50 

FEMA P-154 List of Figures xv 
Figure 3-44 Illustration of a horizontal addition ..................................3-52 

Figure 3-45 Illustration of a vertical addition ......................................3-52 

Figure 3-46 Scoring Matrix portion of the Level 1 Data Collection 

Form for High seismicity .................................................3-54 

Figure 3-47 Extent of Review portion of the Level 1 Data Collection 

Form .................................................................................3-57 

Figure 3-48 Level 2 screening results portion of the Level 1 Data 

Collection Form ...............................................................3-58 

Figure 3-49 Other Hazards portion of the Level 1 Data Collection 

Form .................................................................................3-58 

Figure 3-50 Action Required portion of the Level 1 Data Collection 

Form .................................................................................3-59 

Figure 4-1 Optional Level 2 Data Collection Form.............................4-2 

Figure 4-2 Portion of the Level 2 form for recording building name 

and calculating adjusted baseline score ..............................4-3 

Figure 4-3 Portion of the Level 2 High seismicity Data Collection 

Form for adjusting the baseline score ................................4-4 

Figure 4-4 Illustration of a building with a ground floor story height that 

is twice the height of the stories above ..............................4-6 

Figure 4-5 Illustration of a building with a ground floor story height that 

is 1.5 times the height of the stories above.........................4-7 

Figure 4-6 Illustration of a building with short piers...........................4-8 

Figure 4-7 Illustration of a building with piers that are less than one half 

as deep as the spandrels ......................................................4-8 

Figure 4-8 Illustration of a building with a reentrant corner ..............4-10 

Figure 4-9 Rigid wall, flexible diaphragm building with short wall at 

small reentrant corner .......................................................4-11 

Figure 4-10 Illustration of floors not aligning vertically .....................4-12 

Figure 4-11 Illustration of a building that is two or more stories taller 

than the adjacent building ................................................4-13 

Figure 4-12 Illustration of end buildings .............................................4-13 

Figure 4-13 Illustration of a URM building with a gable end wall ......4-17 

Figure 4-14 Portion of the Level 2 form for nonstructural hazards .....4-20 

xvi List of Figures FEMA P-154 
 

 

 

Figure 7-1	 Property information at example site in city’s geographic 

information system ............................................................ 7-4 

Figure 7-2 USGS web page showing SS and S1 values for MCER
 

ground motions .................................................................. 7-5 

Figure 7-12 Completed Data Collection form for 5020 Ebony
 

Figure 7-14 Completed Data Collection Form for 1450 Addison 

Figure 7-15 Exterior view of modern reinforced brick masonry
 

Figure 7-16 Completed Level 1 Data Collection Form for the main 

Figure 7-17 Completed Level 2 Data Collection Form for the main 

Figure 7-19 Completed Level 1 Data Collection Form for the main 

building (original plus addition) at Washington Middle 

Figure 7-3 Customized Level 1 Data Collection Form for Anyplace, 

USA ................................................................................... 7-7 

Figure 7-4 Partially completed Building Identification portion of the 

Data Collection Form for a sample site for use by the 

screener ............................................................................ 7-10 

Figure 7-5 Exterior view of 3703 Roxbury Street. ............................ 7-12 

Figure 7-6 Close-up view of 3703 Roxbury Street exterior showing 

perimeter braced steel framing. ........................................ 7-12 

Figure 7-7 Completed Data Collection Form for Example 1, 3703 

Roxbury Street. ................................................................ 7-14 

Figure 7-8 Exterior view of 3711 Roxbury Street. ............................ 7-15 

Figure 7-9 Close-up view of 3711 Roxbury Street building showing 

exterior infill frame construction. .................................... 7-16 

Figure 7-10 Completed form for 3711 Roxbury Street ....................... 7-18 

Figure 7-11 Exterior view of 5020 Ebony Drive. ................................ 7-19 

Drive ................................................................................ 7-21 

Figure 7-13 Exterior view of 1450 Addison Avenue .......................... 7-22 

Avenue............................................................................. 7-23 

building at Roosevelt Elementary School ........................ 7-29 

building at Roosevelt Elementary School ........................ 7-30 

building at Roosevelt Elementary School ........................ 7-31 

Figure 7-18 Photo of exterior of Washington Middle School ............. 7-32 

School .............................................................................. 7-34 

FEMA P-154 List of Figures xvii 
 

Figure 7-20	 Completed Level 2 Data Collection Form for the main 

building (original plus addition) at Washington Middle 

School ...............................................................................7-35 

Figure 7-21 Exterior view portable classrooms at New City High 

School ...............................................................................7-36 

Figure 7-22	 Completed Level 1 Data Collection Form for portable 

classrooms at New City High School ...............................7-38 

Figure 7-23	 Completed Level 2 Data Collection Form for portable 

classrooms at New City High School ...............................7-39 

Figure A-1 Very High, High, Moderately High, Moderate, and Low 

seismicity regions in the United States .............................A-2 

Figure A-2 Seismicity regions in California, Idaho, Nevada, Oregon, and 

Washington .......................................................................A-3 

Figure A-3 Seismicity regions in Arizona, Montana, Utah, and 

Wyoming ...........................................................................A-4 

Figure A-4 Seismicity regions in Colorado, Kansas, New Mexico, 

Oklahoma, and Texas........................................................ A-5 

Figure A-5 Seismicity regions in Iowa, Michigan, Nebraska, North 

Dakota, Minnesota, South Dakota, and Wisconsin ...........A-6 

Figure A-6 Seismicity regions in Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky, Missouri, 

and Ohio ............................................................................A-7 

Figure A-7 Seismicity regions in Alabama, Arkansas, Louisiana, 

Mississippi, and Tennessee ...............................................A-8 

Figure A-8 Seismicity regions in Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, 

New Hampshire, New York, Rhode Island, and 

Vermont............................................................................. A-9 

Figure A-9 Seismicity regions in Delaware, Maryland, New Jersey,
 

Pennsylvania, Virginia, and West Virginia ..................... A-10 

Figure A-10	 Seismicity regions in Georgia, North Carolina, South 

Carolina, and Florida....................................................... A-11 

Figure A-11 Seismicity regions in Alaska and Hawaii ........................ A-12 

Figure A-12 Seismicity regions in U.S. Territories. ............................ A-13 

Figure C-1 Representative construction drawing of a floor plan for an S1 

building ............................................................................. C-3 

Figure C-2 Representative construction drawing of a floor plan for a 

C2 building ........................................................................ C-4 

xviii	 List of Figures FEMA P-154 
Figure D-1 Photos showing basic construction in steel-frame buildings 

and reinforced concrete-frame buildings .......................... D-8 

Figure D-2 Building with exterior columns covered with a façade 

Figure D-4 Building with both shear walls (in the short direction) and 

Figure D-5 Regular, full-height joints in a building’s wall indicate a 

Figure D-6 Reinforced masonry wall showing no course of header 

Figure D-7 Reinforced masonry building with exterior wall of concrete 

Figure D-8 A 1970s renovated façade hides a URM bearing wall 

Figure D-9 A concrete shear wall structure with a 1960s renovated
 

Figure D-10 URM wall showing header courses (identified by arrows) 

Figure D-11 Drawing of two types of masonry pattern showing header 

Figure D-17 Pre-1940 cast-in-place concrete with formwork 

material ........................................................................... D-13 

Figure D-3 Detail of the column façade of Figure D-2 ..................... D-13 

frames (in the long direction) .......................................... D-14 

concrete tilt-up ................................................................ D-14 

bricks (a row of visible brick ends) ................................. D-15 

masonry units, or concrete blocks................................... D-15 

structure .......................................................................... D-16 

façade .............................................................................. D-17 

and two washer plates indicating wall anchors............... D-17 

bricks (shown with stipples) ........................................... D-18 

Figure D-12 Diagram of common reinforced masonry construction .. D-18 

Figure D-13 Brick veneer panels......................................................... D-19 

Figure D-14 Hollow clay tile wall with punctured tile........................ D-19 

Figure D-15 Sheet metal siding with masonry pattern ........................ D-20 

Figure D-16 Asphalt siding with brick pattern .................................... D-20 

pattern ............................................................................. D-21 

Figure E-1 Single family residence ......................................................E-2 

Figure E-2 Multi-unit, multistory residential wood frame structure 

with plan areas on each floor of greater than 3,000 

square feet ..........................................................................E-2 

Figure E-3 Larger wood framed structure, typically with room-width 

spans ..................................................................................E-2 

FEMA P-154 List of Figures xix 
 

Figure E-4 Drawing of wood stud frame construction........................ E-3 

Figure E-5 Stud wall, wood framed house .......................................... E-4 

Figure E-6 Drawing of timber pole framed house. .............................. E-4 

Figure E-7 Timber pole framed house. ................................................ E-5 

Figure E-8 House off its foundation, 1983 Coalinga earthquake ........ E-6 

Figure E-9 Failed cripple stud wall, 1992 Big Bear earthquake ......... E-7 

Figure E-10 Seismic strengthening of a cripple wall, with plywood 

sheathing ........................................................................... E-8 

Figure E-11 Drawing of steel moment-resisting frame building ......... E-10 

Figure E-12 Braced frame configurations ........................................... E-11 

Figure E-13 Braced steel frame, with chevron and diagonal braces. .. E-11 

Figure E-14 Chevron bracing in steel building under construction ..... E-12 

Figure E-15 Retrofit of a concrete parking structure using exterior 

X-braced steel frames ...................................................... E-14 

Figure E-16 Use of a braced frame to rehabilitate an unreinforced 

masonry building ............................................................. E-15 

Figure E-17 Drawing of light metal construction ................................ E-15 

Figure E-18 Prefabricated metal building ........................................... E-16 

Figure E-19 Drawing of steel frame with interior concrete shear 

walls ................................................................................ E-18 

Figure E-20 Concrete shear wall on building exterior ........................ E-18 

Figure E-21 Close-up of exterior shear wall damage during a major 

earthquake ....................................................................... E-19 

Figure E-22 Drawing of steel frame with URM infill......................... E-20 

Figure E-23 Example of steel frame with URM infill walls (S5) ....... E-21 

Figure E-24 Drawing of concrete moment-resisting frame
 

building. .......................................................................... E-24 

Figure E-25 Extreme example of ductility in concrete, 1994 

Northridge earthquake..................................................... E-25 

Figure E-26 Example of ductile reinforced concrete column, 1994 

Northridge earthquake; horizontal ties would need to be 

closer for greater demands .............................................. E-26 

xx List of Figures FEMA P-154 
 

 

Figure E-27 Concrete moment-resisting frame building (C1) with 

exposed concrete, deep beams, wide columns (and with 

architectural window framing)......................................... E-26 

Figure E-28 Locations of failures at beam-to-column joints in
 

nonductile frames, 1994 Northridge earthquake..............E-27 

Figure E-29 Drawing of concrete shear wall building .........................E-29 

Figure E-30 Tall concrete shear wall building: walls connected by
 

damaged spandrel beams .................................................E-30 

Figure E-31 Shear wall damage, 1989 Loma Prieta earthquake ..........E-31 

Figure E-32 Concrete frame with URM infill......................................E-32 

Figure E-33 C3 building and detail showing concrete frame with 

URM infill (left wall), and face brick (right wall) ...........E-32 

Figure E-34 Drawing of tilt-up construction typical of the western 

United States ....................................................................E-34 

Figure E-35 Tilt-up industrial building, 1970s ....................................E-35 

Figure E-36 Tilt-up industrial building, mid to late 1980s ..................E-35 

Figure E-37 Tilt-up construction anchorage failure .............................E-36 

Figure E-38 Result of failure of the roof beam anchorage to the wall 

in tilt-up building .............................................................E-37 

Figure E-39 Newly installed anchorage of roof beam to wall in 

tilt-up building .................................................................E-38 

Figure E-40 Drawing of precast concrete frame building ....................E-39 

Figure E-41 Typical precast column cover on a steel or concrete 

moment frame ..................................................................E-40 

Figure E-42 Exposed precast double-Tee sections and 

overlapping beams are indicative of precast frames ........E-40 

Figure E-43 Example of precast double “T” section during 

installation........................................................................E-41 

Figure E-44 Precast structural cross; installation joints are at sections 

where bending is minimum during high seismic 

demand .............................................................................E-42 

Figure E-45 Modern reinforced brick masonry ...................................E-43 

Figure E-46 Drawing of unreinforced masonry bearing wall 

building, two-story ...........................................................E-46 

FEMA P-154 List of Figures xxi 
Figure E-47 Drawing of unreinforced masonry bearing wall 

building, four-story ......................................................... E-47 

Figure E-48 Drawing of unreinforced masonry bearing wall 

building, six-story ........................................................... E-48 

Figure E-49 East Coast URM bearing wall building........................... E-49 

Figure E-50 West Coast URM bearing wall building ......................... E-49 

Figure E-51 Drawings of typical window head features in URM 

bearing wall buildings ..................................................... E-50 

Figure E-52 Parapet failure leaving an uneven roof line, due to 

inadequate anchorage, 1989 Loma Prieta earthquake ..... E-51 

Figure E-53 Damaged URM building, 1992 Big Bear earthquake ..... E-52 

Figure E-54 Two existing anchors above three new wall anchors at 

floor line using decorative washer plates ........................ E-53 

Figure F-1 Wood decay in cripple wall ................................................F-2 

Figure F-2 Damaged wood post...........................................................F-2 

Figure F-3 Rotted timber column......................................................... F-3 

Figure F-4 Corroded steel fasteners .....................................................F-4 

Figure F-5 Spalled concrete cover .......................................................F-5 

Figure F-6 Exposed reinforcing steel ...................................................F-5 

Figure F-7 Concrete cracks ..................................................................F-6 

Figure F-8 “Stair-step” cracking ..........................................................F-7 

Figure F-9 Masonry joint separations ..................................................F-8 

Figure G-1 The separate tectonic plates comprising the earth’s crust 

superimposed on a map of the world ................................G-1 

Figure G-2 Seismicity data for the United States showing earthquake 

locations with varying size of circles depending on the 

magnitude..........................................................................G-4 

Figure G-3 Mid-rise building collapse, 1985 Mexico City 

earthquake ......................................................................... G-7 

Figure G-4 Collapsed chimney with damaged roof, 1987 Whittier 

Narrows earthquake ..........................................................G-8 

xxii List of Figures FEMA P-154 
 

Figure G-5 House that slid off foundation, 1994 Northridge 

earthquake......................................................................... G-8 

Figure G-6 Collapsed cripple stud walls dropped this house to the
 

ground, 1992 Landers and Big Bear earthquakes ............. G-9 

Figure G-7 Photo of house settled to the ground due to collapse of its 

post and pier foundation ................................................... G-9 

Figure G-8 Collapse of unreinforced masonry bearing wall, 1933
 

Long Beach earthquake .................................................. G-10 

Figure G-9 Collapse of a tilt-up bearing wall, 1994 Northridge 

earthquake....................................................................... G-10 

FEMA P-154 List of Figures xxiii 

List of Tables
 

Table 1-1 Comparison of Prominent Seismic Evaluation Methods in 

the United States .............................................................. 1-11 

Table 2-1 Key Players in an RVS Program ........................................ 2-5 

Table 2-2 Seismicity Region Determination from MCER Spectral 

Acceleration Response ..................................................... 2-16 

Table 2-3 RVS Benchmark Years for FEMA Building Types ......... 2-20 

Table 2-4 Quick Reference Guide from Appendix B ....................... 2-21 

Table 2-5 Soil Type Definitions....................................................... 2-30 

Table 2-6 Checklist of Field Equipment Needed for Rapid Visual 

Screening ......................................................................... 2-33 

Table 3-1 FEMA Building Type Descriptions, Basic Scores, and 

Performance in Past earthquakes ..................................... 3-36 

Table 3-2 Level 1 Reference Guide for Reviewing Buildings with 

Horizontal Additions........................................................ 3-54 

Table 4-1 Building Additions Reference Guide............................... 4-14 

Table 5-1 Matrix of Recommended Personnel and Material 

Resources for Various FEMA P-154 RVS 

Applications ..................................................................... 5-16 

Table 6-1 Site Coefficient Fa.............................................................. 6-5 

Table 6-2 Site Coefficient Fv.............................................................. 6-5 

Table 6-3 Comparison of Final Scores using Electronic and PaperBased Scoring for Soil Type CD ....................................... 6-7 

Table 7-1 RVS Budget for Anyplace, USA ....................................... 7-3 

Table 7-2 Customized Quick Reference Guide for Anyplace, 

USA ................................................................................... 7-8 

Table 7-3 RVS Budget for Any State, USA ..................................... 7-25 

Table 7-4 Summary of Paper-Based and Electronic Scores ............. 7-42 

Table A-1 Seismicity Region Determination from MCER Spectral 

Acceleration Response ...................................................... A-1 

FEMA P-154 List of Tables xxv 
 

Table B-1 FEMA Building Types and Code Adoption and 

Enforcement Dates .......................................................... B-12 

Table B-2 Level 1 Reference Guide for Reviewing Buildings with 

Horizontal Additions....................................................... B-13 

Table B-3 Level 1 Pounding Reference Guide ................................ B-14 

Table B-4 Vertical Irregularity Reference Guide............................. B-15 

Table B-5 Plan Irregularity Reference Guide................................... B-17 

Table B-6 Level 2 Building Addition Reference Guide ................... B-18 

Table D-1 Photographs, Architectural Characteristics, and Age of 

Residential Buildings ........................................................ D-3 

Table D-2 Illustrations, Architectural Characteristics, and Age of 

Commercial Structures ......................................................D-4 

Table D-3 Photographs, Architectural Characteristics, and Age of 

Miscellaneous Structures ..................................................D-7 

Table D-4 Most Likely FEMA Building Types for Pre-1930 

Buildings ........................................................................... D-9 

Table D-5 Most Likely FEMA Building Types for 1930-1945 BuildingsD-10 

Table D-6 Most Likely FEMA Building Types for 1945-1960 BuildingsD-11 

Table D-7 Most Likely FEMA Building Types for Post-1960
 

Buildings ......................................................................... D-12 

xxvi List of Tables FEMA P-154
 
Chapter 1 

Introduction 

1.1 Summary of Rapid Visual Screening 

The FEMA P-154 Report, Rapid Visual Screening of Buildings for Potential 

Seismic Hazards: A Handbook, is the first of a two-volume publication on 

recommended methodology for rapid visual screening of buildings for 

potential seismic hazards. The technical basis for the methodology, 

including the scoring system and its development, is contained in the 

companion volume, FEMA P-155 report, Rapid Visual Screening of 

Buildings for Potential Seismic Hazards: Supporting Documentation 

(FEMA, 2015). Both this document and the companion document are third 

editions of similar documents first published by FEMA in 1988 and updated 

in 2002. 

The rapid visual screening (RVS) procedure has been developed to identify, 

inventory, and screen buildings that are potentially seismically hazardous. 

Once identified as potentially hazardous, such buildings should be further 

evaluated by a design professional experienced in seismic design to 

determine if, in fact, they are seismically hazardous. The RVS procedure 

uses a methodology based on a sidewalk survey of a building and a Data 

Collection Form, which the person conducting the survey completes, based 

on visual observation of the building from the exterior, and if possible, the 

interior. The two-page Data Collection Form (shown in Figures 1-1 and 1-2) 

includes space for documenting building identification information, 

including its use and size, a photograph of the building, sketches, and 

documentation of pertinent data related to seismic performance. Based on 

the data collected during the survey, a score is calculated that provides an 

indication of the expected seismic performance of the building. 

Once the decision to conduct rapid visual screening for a community or 

group of buildings has been made, the screening effort can be expedited by 

pre-field planning, including the training of screeners, and careful overall 

management of the process. 

Completion of the Data Collection Form in the field begins with identifying 

the primary structural seismic force-resisting system and structural materials 

of the building. Basic Scores for various building types are provided on the 

form, and the screener circles the appropriate one. The screener modifies the 

FEMA P-154 1: Introduction 1-1 
Figure 1-1 RVS Level 1 Data Collection Form for High seismicity region. 

1-2 1: Introduction FEMA P-154 
Figure 1-2 RVS Level 2 Optional Data Collection Form for High seismicity region. 

FEMA P-154 1: Introduction 1-3 
Basic Score by identifying and circling Score Modifiers. The Score 

Modifiers are related to observed performance attributes and are then added 

(or subtracted) to the Basic Score to arrive at a Final Score. A more detailed 

screening of the building can be documented by using the optional form 

presented on the second page of the Data Collection Form. This optional 

form allows the user to adjust the Final Score with additional Score 

Modifiers. Basic Scores, Score Modifiers, and Final Scores relate to the 

probability of building collapse, should a rare earthquake occur (that is, a 

ground shaking level equivalent to the Maximum Considered Earthquake 

(MCE) currently used in national design and evaluation standards for the 

evaluation of existing buildings). Final Scores typically range from 0 to 7, 

with higher scores corresponding to better expected seismic performance and 

a lower potential for collapse. 

The entity that decides to conduct an RVS program may be a state 

legislature, city council, private company, school district, or other 

organization and is known as the “RVS Authority.” Use of RVS on a 

community-wide basis enables the RVS Authority to divide screened 

buildings into two categories: those that are expected to have acceptable 

seismic performance, and those that may be seismically hazardous and 

should be studied further. A Final Score of 2 is suggested as a “cut-off,” 

based on present seismic design criteria. Using this cut-off level, buildings 

with Final Score of 2 or less should be investigated by a design professional 

experienced in seismic design. 

The procedure presented in this Handbook is meant to be the preliminary 

screening phase of a multi-phase procedure for identifying potentially 

hazardous buildings. Buildings identified by this procedure as potentially 

hazardous should be analyzed in more detail by an experienced seismic 

design professional. The RVS method identifies building attributes that may 

contribute to poor seismic performance, and conservative assumptions have 

been made in developing the methodology. However, because rapid visual 

screening is designed to be performed from the sidewalk, with interior 

inspection not always possible, hazardous details will not always be visible, 

and seismically hazardous buildings may not be identified as such. 

Conversely, buildings initially identified as potentially hazardous by RVS 

may prove to be adequate. 

The methodology presented here can serve as an efficient step in assessing 

risk as part of a broader seismic risk-management program. Its cost is 15 to 

75 minutes of inspection time for each building of interest, plus travel time 

between buildings, potentially several person-days of preparation time, and 

potentially several person-days to compile results into decision-making 

1-4 1: Introduction FEMA P-154 
information. Its benefits can be much greater, potentially eliminating the 

need for detailed seismic analysis of a large fraction of the buildings in 

question. Each such detailed evaluation that is avoided can save hours, days, 

or more of effort by an engineering professional. 

1.2 Screening Procedure Purpose, Overview, and Target 

Audience 

The updated RVS procedure presented in this Handbook has been formulated 

to identify, inventory, and screen buildings that are potentially seismically 

hazardous. The target audience for the Handbook includes (1) those agencies 

or organizations that are considering conducting a rapid visual screening 

program; and (2) the screeners who will conduct the evaluations. The 

screeners can be civil engineers, structural engineers, architects, design 

professionals, building officials, construction contractors, firefighters, 

architectural or engineering students, or other individuals with general 

familiarity or background in building design or construction. The 

instructions in this Handbook are intended to minimize ambiguity and limit 

the need for judgment, making the methodology accessible to a wide array of 

potential screeners. 

The RVS procedure can be implemented relatively quickly and 

inexpensively to develop a list of potentially seismically hazardous 

buildings without the high cost of performing a detailed seismic analysis of 

every individual building. If a building receives a high score (i.e., above a 

specified cut-off score), the building is considered to have adequate seismic 

resistance to prevent collapse during a rare earthquake. The building score 

reflects probability of collapse or partial collapse only (as defined in the 

sidebar), and is not meant to be an indicator of the probability that the 

building will be usable following an earthquake. If a building receives a 

low score on the basis of this RVS procedure, it should be evaluated by a 

design professional experienced in seismic design. On the basis of a 

detailed inspection, engineering analyses, and other detailed procedures, a 

final determination of the seismic adequacy and the need for retrofit can be 

made. Typically, an evaluation based on ASCE/SEI 41-13, Seismic 

Evaluation and Retrofit of Existing Buildings (ASCE, 2014), will be most 

appropriate for those buildings that require a Detailed Structural Evaluation. 

Identification of selected nonstructural hazards is included in the 

methodology. Where a Detailed Nonstructural Evaluation is recommended 

based on the results of the rapid visual screening, FEMA E-74, Reducing the 

Risks of Nonstructural Earthquake Damage – A Practical Guide, Fourth 

Edition (FEMA, 2012e), can be used. 

Definition of Collapse 

FEMA P-154 defines collapse 

probability as the probability that 

the building will suffer partial or 

complete collapse. In that part of 

the building, the gravity loadcarrying system (such as beams, 

columns, floors, and shear walls) 

loses the ability to carry its own 

weight and the weight of whatever 

else it supports. That failure leads 

to severe structural deformation of 

a potentially life-threatening 

nature, especially falling of all or 

portions of a structure. A 

potentially seismically hazardous 

building is one where, within the 

accuracy of the RVS procedure, the 

collapse probability is estimated to 

be more than 1% in rare 

earthquake shaking (using the 

default cut-off score of 2.0). See 

FEMA P-155 Section 4.4.1 for 

further details. 

FEMA P-154 1: Introduction 1-5 
During the planning stage, which is discussed in Chapter 2, the RVS 

Authority will need to select both a Program Manager and a Supervising 

Engineer. The Program Manager oversees management and administration 

of the RVS program. The Supervising Engineer should be a structural 

engineer with a background in seismic evaluation. RVS programs have a 

wide range of goals, and constraints on budget, completion date, and 

accuracy, which must be considered when planning the program. For some 

RVS programs, it will be preferable to use more experienced design 

professionals as screeners. 

The RVS procedure in this Handbook is designed to be implemented without 

performing structural analyses. The RVS procedure employs a scoring 

system that requires the screener to: (1) determine the building type by 

identifying the primary gravity load-carrying material of construction and the 

primary seismic force-resisting system; and (2) identify building attributes 

that modify the seismic performance expected of the respective average 

building type. Data collection and scoring typically will occur at the building 

site, taking an average of 15 to 30 minutes per building (additional time is 

needed if the interior is accessed or if a Level 2 screening is performed). 

Observations are recorded on one of five Data Collection Forms, depending 

on the seismicity of the region being surveyed. The Data Collection Forms, 

described in greater detail in Chapters 3 and 4, provide space for 

documenting building identification information, including its use and size, a 

photograph of the building, sketches, and documentation of pertinent data 

related to seismic performance. 

Buildings may be reviewed from the sidewalk without the benefit of building 

entry, structural drawings, or structural calculations. Reliability and 

confidence in building attribute determination are increased, however, if the 

structural framing system can be verified during interior screening, or using 

construction documents. 

The scores are based on average expected ground shaking levels for the 

seismicity region and are intended to reflect the seismic design and 

construction practices for that region. In general, there are little or no 

seismic design requirements in Low seismicity regions, limited seismic 

design requirements in Moderate seismicity regions, and extensive seismic 

design requirements in Moderately High, High, and Very High seismicity 

regions. Consequently, a building in a High seismicity region will have 

generally been constructed with more seismic resistance than a similar 

building in a Low seismicity region. Seismic design and construction 

practices, however, vary regionally and are not necessarily uniform across 

regions of similar seismic risk. Western states and particularly California 

1-6 1: Introduction FEMA P-154 
FEMA P-154 1: Introduction 1-7 

have historically imposed stricter seismic design requirements sooner than 

other places, in large part because of greater awareness among design 

professionals. Moderately High, High, and Very High seismicity regions in 

other areas may have no seismic design provisions or may have only just 

recently adopted and begun to enforce seismic design provisions. The 

methodology provides Score Modifiers to adjust scores to reflect buildings 

built before seismic provisions were implemented (known as “pre-code”) and 

after modern seismic provisions were required (known as the “benchmark” 

year). By identifying pre-code and benchmark years that accurately reflect 

the local design and construction practices, the RVS procedure can be 

implemented in any area (see Chapter 2 for further discussion of how the 

Supervising Engineer selects the pre-code and benchmark years). 

In this edition, seismicity regions have been updated to consider risk-targeted 

Maximum Considered Earthquake (MCER) ground motions. These ground 

motions are described in more detail in FEMA P-155. Chapter 2 discusses 

determination of seismicity regions and Figure 1-3 provides a map of 

seismicity regions in the United States. Appendix A provides enlarged maps. 

Figure 1-3 Map showing Very High, High, Moderately High, Moderate, and Low seismicity 

regions in the United States. A different RVS Data Collection Form has been 

developed for each of these regions. 
The RVS procedure is intended to be applicable nationwide, for all 

conventional building types. Bridges, large towers, and other non-building 

structure types, however, are not covered by the procedure. Because of 

budget or other constraints, some RVS Authorities may wish to restrict their 

RVS to identifying only selected building types that they consider potentially 

hazardous, such as unreinforced masonry or nonductile concrete buildings, or 

critical, such as schools. If an RVS program is limited to only select building 

types, it is possible that some potentially hazardous buildings may not be 

identified. 

1.3 Role of FEMA 154 in the Spectrum of Seismic 

Evaluation Tools 

The Handbook was originally developed as an integral and fundamental part 

of the FEMA report series on seismic safety of existing buildings. In the 26 

years since the initial publication, the documents that were part of the 

original FEMA report series have been updated. In addition, the Applied 

Technology Council (ATC), the American Society of Civil Engineers 

(ASCE), and the National Institute of Building Sciences (NIBS) have also 

developed documents that address seismic safety of existing buildings. The 

following is a list of publications intended for use by design professionals 

and others as part of a program to mitigate the damaging effects of 

earthquakes on existing buildings: 

	 ASCE/SEI 41-13 provides both procedures to evaluate the seismic forceresisting capacity of buildings and recommended procedures for the 

seismic retrofitting of buildings with inadequate seismic capacity. The 

ASCE/SEI 41-13 procedure includes three tiers of evaluation and is ideal 

for those buildings that require a Detailed Structural Evaluation. 

Previously, evaluation was covered by ASCE/SEI 31-03, Seismic 

Evaluation of Existing Buildings (ASCE, 2003), and recommended 

retrofitting procedures, along with more in-depth evaluation procedures 

were contained in the separate ASCE/SEI 41-06 standard, Seismic 

Evaluation and Retrofit of Existing Buildings (ASCE, 2007). ASCE/SEI 

31 was an updated version of FEMA 310, Handbook for Seismic 

Evaluation of Buildings - A Prestandard (FEMA, 1998), which in turn 

was an update of the original FEMA 178 report, NEHRP Handbook for 

the Seismic Evaluation of Existing Buildings (FEMA, 1992). ASCE/SEI 

41 began as an updated version of FEMA 356, Prestandard and 

Commentary for the Seismic Retrofit of Buildings (FEMA, 2000b), which 

was in turn an update of FEMA 273, NEHRP Guidelines for the Seismic 

Rehabilitation of Buildings (FEMA, 1997a). 

1-8 1: Introduction FEMA P-154 
	 FEMA P-58-1, Seismic Performance Assessment of Buildings, Volume 1 

– The Methodology (FEMA, 2012d), is the initial volume in a series of 

publications that document a sophisticated “methodology for seismic 

performance assessment of individual buildings that properly accounts 

for uncertainty in accurately predicting response, and communicates 

performance in ways that better relate to the decision-making needs of 

stakeholders. The procedures are probabilistic, uncertainties are 

explicitly considered, and performance is expressed as the probable 

consequences, in terms of human losses (deaths and serious injuries), 

direct economic losses (building repair or replacement costs), and 

indirect losses (repair time and unsafe placarding) resulting from 

building damage due to earthquake shaking.” 

	 HAZUS-MH is FEMA’s nationally applicable software program that 

estimates potential building and infrastructure losses from earthquakes, 

riverine and coastal floods, and hurricane winds using methodology 

documented in the Multi-Hazard Loss Estimation Methodology, 

Earthquake Model, HAZUS-MH MR4 Technical Manual (FEMA, 

2009a). HAZUS can be used to inform decision-making at all levels of 

government by providing a reasonable basis for developing mitigation, 

emergency preparedness, and response and recovery plans and policies. 

	 FEMA 547 report, Techniques for the Seismic Rehabilitation of Existing 

Buildings (FEMA, 2006), provides a comprehensive discussion of 

common techniques for seismic retrofitting, with extensive figures and 

advice on detailing. 

	 FEMA P-50 report, Simplified Seismic Assessment of Detached, SingleFamily, Wood-Frame Dwellings (FEMA, 2012a), uses a simplified 

seismic assessment form to evaluate detached, single-family, woodframe dwellings, and to assign each a grade that represents expected 

performance in future damaging earthquakes. 

	 FEMA P-50-1 report, Seismic Retrofit Guidelines for Detached, SingleFamily, Wood-Frame Dwellings (FEMA, 2012b), provides practical 

information on retrofit measures to improve the earthquake resistance of 

a particular home. 

	 FEMA P-807 report, Seismic Evaluation and Retrofit of Multi-Unit 

Wood-Frame Buildings with Weak First Stories (FEMA, 2012c), 

provides guidance for evaluation and cost-effective retrofit procedures 

for wood buildings with weak ground stories. 

FEMA P-154 1: Introduction 1-9 
1-10 1: Introduction FEMA P-154 

 FEMA E-74 explains the sources of nonstructural earthquake damage in 

simple terms and provides methods for reducing potential risks. FEMA 

E-74 is ideal where a Detailed Nonstructural Evaluation is recommended 

based on the results of the rapid visual screening. 

Additional publications exist to evaluate and repair buildings damaged in 

earthquakes. They include the following: 

 ATC-20-1, Field Manual: Postearthquake Safety Evaluation of Buildings

(ATC, 2005), provides a procedure to evaluate earthquake-damaged 

buildings and post them as INSPECTED (no occupancy restriction, green 

placard), RESTRICTED USE (yellow placard), or UNSAFE (red 

placard). This procedure has two tiers for conducting rapid and detailed 

evaluations. 

 FEMA 352, Recommended Postearthquake Evaluation and Repair 

Criteria for Welded Steel Moment-Frame Buildings (FEMA, 2000a), 

provides guidance for evaluation and repair of damaged steel moment 

frame structures. 

 FEMA 306, Evaluation of Earthquake Damaged Concrete and Masonry 

Wall Buildings: Basic Procedures Manual (FEMA 1999a), provides 

guidance for evaluating earthquake damage to concrete and masonry 

wall buildings. FEMA 307, Evaluation of Earthquake Damaged 

Concrete and Masonry Wall Buildings: Technical Resources (FEMA, 

1999b), provides technical background to FEMA 306. FEMA 308, The 

Repair of Earthquake Damaged Concrete and Masonry Wall Buildings

(FEMA, 1999c), provides guidance for the repair and retrofit of concrete 

and masonry wall buildings damaged in earthquakes. 

 ATC-52-4, Here Today—Here Tomorrow: The Road to Earthquake 

Resilience in San Francisco: Post-Earthquake Repair and Retrofit 

Requirements (ATC, 2010), provides guidance for evaluating damage 

and determining repair and retrofit requirements for single family 

residences, multi-story multi-unit wood frame residential structures, and 

older concrete buildings. Though developed for San Francisco, the 

report has information and recommendations that can be applied to other 

seismically active areas. 

Table 1-1 provides a simplified comparison of these seismic evaluation 

methods with respect to the time required to perform the evaluation, the 

relative cost, and the qualifications needed to perform the evaluation. 
FEMA P-154 1: Introduction 1-11 

Table 1-1 Comparison of Prominent Seismic Evaluation Methods in the United States 

Undamaged 

Buildings 

FEMA P-154 ASCE/SEI 41 Tier 1 ASCE/SEI 41 Tier 2 ASCE/SEI 41 Tier 3

FEMA P-807 

FEMA P-58 

HAZUS 

EarthquakeDamaged 

Buildings 

ATC-20 Rapid ATC-20 Detailed FEMA 352 

ATC-52-4 

FEMA 306 

ATC-52-4 

Time Required Minutes Hours Days Weeks 

Relative Cost $ $$ $$$ $$$$ 

Qualifications Properly trained building 

professionals (see Section 2.2) 

Structural engineers experienced in seismic evaluation and design 

1.4 History of FEMA 154 

Rapid visual screening of buildings for potential seismic hazards was 

discussed in a series of papers contained in Techniques for Rapid Assessment 

of Seismic Vulnerability (Scawthorn, 1986). The FEMA 154 methodology 

originated soon after in 1988 with the publication of the FEMA 154 report, 

Rapid Visual Screening of Buildings for Potential Seismic Hazards: A 

Handbook (FEMA, 1988a). 

During the decade following publication of the first edition of the FEMA 154 

Handbook, the RVS procedure was used by private-sector organizations and 

government agencies to evaluate more than 70,000 buildings nationwide 

(FEMA, 2002b). Through this widespread application, knowledge was 

gained about who the likely users of the RVS procedure are and why they 

use it, the ease-of-use of the Handbook, and the accuracy of the procedure’s 

scoring system. 

Concurrent with the widespread use of the document, damaging earthquakes 

occurred in California and elsewhere, and extensive research and 

development efforts were carried out under the National Earthquake Hazards 

Reduction Program (NEHRP). These efforts yielded important new data on 

the performance of buildings in earthquakes, and on the expected 

distribution, severity, and occurrence of earthquake-induced ground shaking. 

The data and information gathered during the first decade after publication 

(experience in applying the original Handbook, new building earthquake 

performance data, and new ground shaking information) were used to update 

and improve the rapid visual screening procedure provided in the second 

edition of the FEMA 154 report, Rapid Visual Screening of Buildings for 

Potential Seismic Hazards: A Handbook (FEMA, 2002a). The procedure in 

the Second Edition retained the same framework and approach of the original 
 

procedure, but incorporated a revised scoring system compatible with the 

ground motion criteria in the FEMA 310 report and the damage and loss 

estimation methodology provided in the then recently developed FEMAfunded HAZUS Technical Manual (FEMA, 1999d). 

The Basic Scores (referred to in the Second Edition as “Basic Structural 

Hazard Scores”) and Score Modifiers were updated using analytical 

calculations and HAZUS fragility curves for the building types considered by 

the RVS methodology. As in the original Handbook, a Data Collection Form 

was provided for each of three seismicity regions: Low, Moderate, and High. 

However, the boundaries of the Low, Moderate, and High seismicity regions 

identified in the previous version of the Handbook were modified based on 

new knowledge on the expected distribution, severity, and occurrence of 

earthquake ground shaking. In addition, the recurrence interval was changed 

from a 475-year average return period (corresponding to ground motions 

having a 10% probability of exceedance in 50 years) to two-thirds of the 

values from a 2,475-year average return period (corresponding to ground 

motions having a 2% probability of exceedance in 50 years). 

The second edition of the Handbook was also shortened from the original 

and focused to facilitate implementation. It included guidance on planning 

and managing an RVS survey and provided additional guidance for 

identifying the structural (seismic force-resisting) system. The Data 

Collection Form was revised to document soil type, falling hazards, and an 

expanded list of occupancy types. 

FEMA has conducted training on the second edition of FEMA 154 through 

the National Earthquake Training Assistance Program (NETAP). 

1.5 Third Edition Updates to FEMA 154 

This third edition of FEMA P-154 comes about after the second decade of 

extensive use of the procedure, which has identified several areas of 

necessary enhancement. The Third Edition also takes into consideration the 

evolution of computer-aided tools for more efficient implementation of the 

procedure. 

Major enhancements in the Third Edition include the following: 

	 The Data Collection Form (Level 1) has been reorganized to enhance 

usability. 

	 An optional Level 2 Data Collection Form has been added. The goal of 

the Level 2 screening is to obtain valuable additional information and a 

more accurate assessment without a substantial increase in effort or time. 

1-12	 1: Introduction FEMA P-154 
It is still a rapid visual screening, but relies on further information 

gathered by an experienced engineer or architect. 

	 The number of seismicity regions has been expanded from three to five 

to increase accuracy of screening in higher seismicity regions. The Third 

Edition seismicity regions are based on MCER ground motions (rather 

than the two-thirds of MCE ground motions that were used in the Second 

Edition). 

	 All Basic Scores and Score Modifiers have been updated. 

	 Reference guides for identifying vertical and plan irregularities are now 

provided to guide the screeners in determining whether irregularities 

exist, reducing ambiguity and limiting the need for judgment. Additional 

figures have been added to the document to help illustrate various 

irregularities. Score Modifier values now vary depending on the severity 

of the irregularity. 

	 Large multi-unit, multi-story wood frame residential and manufactured 

housing building types have been added. 

	 The screening procedure for nonstructural hazards has been enhanced. 

	 The occupancy classes have been updated to align better with those in 

the HAZUS-MH MR4 Technical Manual (FEMA, 2009a) and the 2012 

International Building Code (ICC, 2012). 

	 Pounding and adjacency are now considered. 

	 Better guidance for screening buildings with additions is provided. 

	 Consideration of existing retrofits has been included on the Level 2 Data 

Collection Form. 

	 A minimum score has been included on the Data Collection Form to 

address negative scores. 

	 An optional electronic scoring methodology has been provided, and 

FEMA P-154 Rapid Observation of Vulnerability and Estimation of Risk 

(ROVER) software (FEMA, 2014b) is discussed. 

	 Additional information has been provided on how to run an effective 

RVS program, including required and optional tasks and associated 

resources needs. 

	 Additional discussion on how to use the results of RVS for advocacy has 

been added. 

FEMA P-154	 1: Introduction 1-13 
1.6 Rapid Visual Screening Procedures 

The Data Collection Form used for rapid visual screening has now been 

extended with an optional second page, where the first page represents a 

Level 1 screening and the second page represents an optional Level 2 

screening. The Level 1 screening is similar to the procedure used in the 

second edition of the Handbook, with the same objectives and the same 

general level of expertise required from the screeners. The Level 2 screening 

is more detailed than the Level 1 screening, and requires greater expertise to 

complete, but it is still rapid and visual. In both levels, the screener fills out 

the form and determines a score for the building. This score provides an 

indication of the expected seismic performance of the building. The Level 2 

score can be higher than the Level 1 score (indicating less seismic risk), 

because Score Modifiers within the Level 1 screening score have more 

conservative values. In some instances, the Level 2 score can be lower than 

the Level 1 score, because the Level 2 screening evaluates some items in 

more detail and includes some items not covered by the Level 1 screening. 

For both levels, the screeners require training, and, for quality assurance 

purposes, the screening program must be overseen by a design professional 

knowledgeable in seismic design, evaluation, and risk assessment. 

There are five versions of each form, one each for regions of Low, Moderate, 

Moderately High, High, and Very High seismicity. The forms for Moderate, 

Moderately High, High, and Very High seismicity regions vary only in the 

values assigned to the Basic Scores and Score Modifiers and in the criteria 

used to assess pounding. 

1.7 Optional Electronic Scoring 

Data Collection Forms have been set up to be used as paper forms with 

simple arithmetic to determine a score for the building. This Third Edition 

also introduces an optional use of electronic scoring. There are a number of 

alternative methods that can be developed to implement electronic scoring 

for RVS, as described in Chapter 6. The use of electronic scoring is intended 

to improve the process by reducing errors when transferring data and to 

allow for more refinement in the scoring based on site-specific seismic 

hazard and soil information. 

1.8 Using ROVER to Perform RVS 

FEMA P-154 Rapid Observation of Vulnerability and Estimation of Risk 

(ROVER) software developed by the Applied Technology Council (ATC) for 

FEMA (2014) is free mobile software for pre- and post-earthquake building 

safety screening. Its pre-earthquake module implements FEMA 154 Second 

1-14 1: Introduction FEMA P-154 
 

Edition procedures and automates several RVS tasks. ROVER is platformindependent, currently operating through a web browser on Android, iPad, 

Blackberry, Windows Phone, or any web-connected smart device 

(smartphone, tablet, or other device with a browser). 

Data are entered through the browser and transmitted to a secure, webaccessible server that is controlled by the user or optionally by a web service 

provider. The web server places the FEMA 154 RVS data into a database 

that allows for access to the data by the screener or other authorized person. 

Field data can be entered into the database either directly through the smart 

device’s browser, or collected on paper forms and manually transcribed later 

into the database through a web browser. At the time of the preparation of 

the FEMA P-154 Third Edition, data entry into the web browser closely 

resembled the FEMA 154 Second Edition paper form with the addition that 

FEMAP-154 ROVER provides the following capabilities: geolocation, 

digital photos, automated site-specific hazard and soil lookup, automatic 

score calculation, integration with HAZUS-MH, ShakeCast, ATC-20, and 

user data files. 

FEMA P-154 ROVER can be acquired on CD from the FEMA warehouse or 

downloaded from www.roverready.org. It is recommended that the reader 

check the website for the latest updates on FEMA P-154 ROVER, which 

may have since evolved. FEMA offers FEMA P-154 ROVER training in 

addition to FEMA 154 training through NETAP. 

1.9 Uses of RVS Survey Results 

While the principal purpose of the RVS procedure is to identify potentially 

seismically hazardous buildings needing further evaluation, results from RVS 

surveys can also be used for other purposes. These include: (1) evaluating a 

community’s or agency’s seismic retrofitting needs; (2) designing seismic 

hazard mitigation programs for a community or agency; (3) developing 

inventories of buildings for use in monitoring buildings for earthquake 

impacts or for facilitating earthquake damage and loss assessments; (4) 

planning post-earthquake building safety evaluation efforts; and (5) 

developing building-specific seismic vulnerability information for purposes 

such as insurance rating, decision making during building ownership 

transfers, and possible triggering of remodeling requirements during the 

permitting process. Chapter 2 discusses development of an RVS program, 

including establishment of goals and objectives. Additional discussion on 

the use of RVS survey results, including a discussion on using the survey 

results for seismic advocacy, is provided in Chapter 5. 

FEMA P-154 1: Introduction 1-15 
 

 

1.10 Advantages and Limitations of the RVS Method 

The RVS method described in this Handbook has a number of advantages as 

well as limitations that need to be understood when developing and 

implementing a screening program, and when using the results. 

1.10.1 Advantages 

The primary advantages of the RVS method are speed and ability to use 

screeners who are not necessarily structural engineers. The procedure in this 

Handbook has been designed to minimize ambiguity and limit the need for 

judgment by the screeners. As noted above, it fills a unique niche in the 

spectrum of available seismic evaluation tools, as other tools require greater 

effort, expertise, and cost. Because screening can be done quickly, large 

portfolios of buildings can be evaluated in a cost effective manner. The 

method has also been used by many different people and jurisdictions 

throughout the United States for over 25 years. As a result, it has had a long 

track record of actual use and opportunities for scrutiny and improvement, 

including both the second and third edition updates. 

1.10.2 Limitations 

The RVS method’s primary advantage relates to its intrinsic limitations. 

Limited review—often only from the exterior, typically without the benefit 

of drawing review, and without calculation—means the accuracy of the RVS 

method is anticipated to be less than that of more detailed, time consuming, 

and expensive reviews. Determining the seismic force-resisting system is 

integral to the method (and to any seismic evaluation). It is likely that for a 

relatively small percentage of buildings in any screening program, the 

seismic force-resisting system cannot be identified by a rapid visual 

screening because the structure will be covered by architectural finishes. A 

Detailed Structural Evaluation will be required to determine the building 

type. 

An interior review is desirable, but not always possible given either the 

available time or access limitations. As such, interior hazards can be missed, 

and an understanding of the structural system and some of its deficiencies is 

necessarily limited. 

In more detailed evaluation methods, drawings are reviewed and calculations 

are done, providing a more refined understanding of the individual building’s 

structural characteristics. With drawing review, it may be possible to spot 

deficiencies known to be of concern that cannot be seen in a rapid visual 

screening. Seismic evaluation calculations determine the relationship 

1-16 1: Introduction FEMA P-154 
 

between demands on members and their associated capacities and whether 

they are expected to have more desirable ductile behaviors or less desirable 

nonductile behaviors. The RVS method does not include calculations, so 

assessments of seismic capacity are based on more general considerations 

related to building type, geometric irregularities, and site soil conditions. 

Because large numbers of buildings are often screened and the level of 

expertise can vary widely, errors are inevitable. It is essential to have a 

thorough quality assurance program to minimize the extent of the errors. 

Given the large data collection effort and the potential flexibility in program 

goals, it is important to manage the program thoughtfully and with 

organizational skill to derive the most efficient use of personnel and to 

organize the collected information in the most useful way. 

This Handbook provides advice in the following chapters to help minimize 

the limitations of the method so that the program can be as successful as 

possible. 

1.11 Companion FEMA P-155 Report 

The companion volume to this report, Rapid Visual Screening of Buildings 

for Potential Seismic Hazards: Supporting Documentation (Third Edition) 

(FEMA P-155) documents the technical basis for the RVS procedure 

described in this Handbook. The third edition of FEMA P-155 provides the 

basis for the updated Basic Scores and Score Modifiers and the basis for the 

updated criteria for considering pounding and building additions in the RVS 

procedure. It also provides an explanation of the risk associated with RVS 

scores. 

1.12 Organization of This Handbook 

The Handbook has been designed to facilitate the planning and execution of 

a rapid visual screening program. It is assumed that the RVS Authority has 

already decided to conduct the survey, and that detailed guidance is needed 

for all aspects of the surveying process. Therefore, the main body of the 

Handbook focuses on the three principal activities in the RVS procedure: 

planning, execution, and data interpretation. Chapter 2 contains detailed 

information on planning and managing an RVS program. Chapter 3 

describes in detail how to complete the Level 1 Data Collection Form, and 

Chapter 4 describes in detail how to complete the optional Level 2 Data 

Collection Form. Chapter 5 provides guidance on interpreting and using the 

RVS results. Chapter 6 describes how to use optional electronic scoring. 

Finally, Chapter 7 provides example applications of the RVS procedure on 

sample buildings. 

FEMA P-154 1: Introduction 1-17 
Relevant seismic hazard maps are provided in Appendix A. Full-sized Data 

Collection Forms and the Reference Guides (including the Quick Reference 

Guide and reference guides for irregularities, additions, and pounding), are 

provided in Appendix B. Guidance for reviewing design and construction 

drawings are provided in Appendix C and additional guidance for identifying 

a building’s seismic force-resisting system from the street are provided in 

Appendix D. Appendix E provides additional information on the building 

types considered in the RVS procedure, and Appendix F provides guidance 

for assessing damage and deterioration of common building materials. 

Appendix G provides an overview of earthquake fundamentals, the 

seismicity of the United States, and earthquake effects. 

1-18 1: Introduction FEMA P-154 
 

Chapter 2 

Planning and Managing a 

Successful Rapid Visual 

Screening Program 

2.1 Planning and Implementing an RVS Program 

Once the decision to conduct rapid visual screening (RVS) for a community 

or group of buildings has been made by the RVS Authority, the screening 

effort can be expedited by planning and careful overall management of the 

process. This chapter provides detailed information on important planning 

and management aspects of conducting an RVS program, including a 

description of the overall screening implementation sequence. Instructions 

on how to complete the Data Collection Forms are provided in Chapters 3 

and 4. 

There are several steps involved in planning a successful RVS program. As 

a first step, the RVS Authority should define the goals and objectives of the 

RVS program and describe how the RVS results will be used. The RVS 

Authority should then select a Program Manager to manage the program and 

a Supervising Engineer to provide the technical expertise necessary to 

conduct an RVS program. Next, the Program Manager, in consultation with 

the Supervising Engineer, should define the scope of the project. Defining 

the scope is done in conjunction with and concurrent to developing the 

project budget. Scope issues, such as deciding how many buildings will be 

screened, screener resources and experience, and whether Level 2 screenings 

will be performed, have a direct impact on the budget. Coordination is 

required to bring the project scope and the budget in line with one another. 

Once the project scope and the project budget have been defined by the 

Program Manager and approved by the RVS Authority, implementation of 

the RVS program continues with additional pre-field activities, such as the 

following: 

 Pre-field planning, including selection and development of a recordkeeping system, development of electronic scoring tools (if desired), and 

compilation and development of maps that document local seismic 

hazard information, 

“RVS Authority” refers to the 

entity that has made the 

decision to perform an RVS 

program. Examples of RVS 

Authorities include state 

legislatures, city councils, 

school districts, and private 

building owners. 

FEMA P-154 2: Planning and Managing A Successful 

Rapid Visual Screening Program 

2-1 
 

 Selection of the Data Collection Form based on the seismic hazard and 

review and modification of the Data Collection Form for the individual 

needs of the RVS program, 

 Selection and training of screening personnel, 

 Acquisition and review of pre-field data, including review of available 

building files and databases to collect existing information on the 

buildings to be screened (e.g., address, lot number, number of stories, 

design date) and identifying soil types for the survey area, and 

 Review of existing building plans, if available. 

Following the completion of these pre-field activities, field screening of 

individual buildings is performed (see Chapters 3 and 4 for details). The 

RVS program concludes after the screening data are checked for quality and 

the screening results are filed in the record-keeping system or database. The 

RVS Authority can then use the RVS results for decision making. 

The general sequence of implementing the RVS procedure is depicted in 

Figure 2-1. 

2.2	 Selecting the RVS Program Manager and the 

Supervising Engineer 

The RVS Authority determines who will manage the RVS program. The 

Program Manager is responsible for defining the program scope, developing 

the program budget, and overseeing implementation of the screening 

program. The Program Manager must be knowledgeable about RVS and 

capable of managing the project. Whether the RVS Authority decides to 

manage the program itself or whether it decides to hire an outside consultant 

will depend on the capabilities of the RVS Authority, as well as the size and 

complexity of the program. If the RVS Authority is a building department, 

for example, it may be possible for individuals within the department to 

manage the program. If the RVS Authority is a state legislature, on the other 

hand, it will be desirable to hire a consultant to manage the program or assign 

the task to a qualified technical branch of government. 

A Supervising Engineer is also required to run a successful RVS program. 

The Supervising Engineer should be a local practicing structural engineer 

with a background in seismic evaluation and risk assessments. The 

Supervising Engineer should ideally also have experience with the FEMA 

RVS methodology. If the Supervising Engineer is not knowledgeable about 

the technical basis of FEMA P-154, he or she should become so by 

reviewing both FEMA P-154 and FEMA P-155. 

2-2 2: Planning and Managing A Successful FEMA P-154 

Rapid Visual Screening Program 
 

 

 

Define the goals and 

objectives of the RVS 

program and how the

results will be used 

Select the Program 

Manager and the 

Supervising Engineer 

Define the scope of the 

program and develop the budget 

Perform pre-field planning Select and modify the

Data Collection Form 

Select and train the 

screeners 

Acquire and review of

pre-field building data Review existing construction drawings, if available

 Perform field screening of buildings 

File the screening data 

in the record-keeping 

system 

Check the quality of the screening data 

RVS results available for 

the RVS Authority to use 

for decision making! 

Figure 2-1 Rapid visual screening implementation sequence. 

FEMA P-154 2: Planning and Managing A Successful 

Rapid Visual Screening Program 

2-3 
In addition to overall quality assurance, the Supervising Engineer has the 

following responsibilities: 

	 Selecting and modifying the Data Collection Form, 

	 Determining key seismic code adoption dates for the area being 

screened, 

	 Determining benchmark years for the area being screened, 

	 Determining the cut-off score to be used in concert with the RVS 

Authority and Program Manager, 

	 Training the screeners (alternatively, training courses may be available 

through FEMA), 

	 Being available for the screeners to consult with during the field 

screenings, 

	 Reviewing the completed forms, and 

	 Providing assistance in interpreting the results of the RVS screening. 

If the Program Manager is an experienced structural engineer, he or she can 

perform the role of Supervising Engineer. 

Table 2-1 provides a description of the key players in an RVS program, 

including the roles and responsibilities of each, as well as the recommended 

qualification for each position. 

2.3 Defining the Scope of the RVS Program 

Defining the scope of an RVS program involves many choices. This section 

presents some of the most important choices and describes the consequences 

of various decisions. Decisions generally vary based on the goals and 

objectives of individual programs and the resources available. 

If the RVS program is to be a public or community project, the local 

governing body and local building officials should formally approve of the 

program plan and general procedure. Then, the public or the members of the 

community should be informed about the purpose of the screening process 

and how it will be carried out. 

2.3.1 Determining Resources Needed for the RVS Program 

Understanding the intended end uses of an RVS program before developing a 

project scope and budget is imperative. 

2-4 2: Planning and Managing A Successful FEMA P-154 

Rapid Visual Screening Program 
Table 2-1 Key Players in an RVS Program 

Entity Description Examples Qualifications Responsibilities 

RVS Entity that has State legislature, city Has authority to Sets the goals and objectives of the 

Authority decided to 

conduct an RVS 

program and will 

use the results. 

council, school district, 

private building owner. 

conduct an RVS 

program. 

program and describes how the 

results will be used. Chooses the 

Program Manager and the 

Supervising Engineer. Approves the 

plan developed by the Program 

Manager. 

Program Entity that will Building department, Knowledgeable about Defines the scope of the program 

Manager manage the RVS 

program on behalf 

of the RVS 

Authority. 

qualified technical 

branch of government, 

outside consultant. 

RVS. Capable of 

managing the project. 

and develops the budget. Oversees 

implementation of the screening 

program. Allocates screener 

resources to ensure efficient use of 

their time and minimize travel time. 

Program Manager likely has 

administrative staff to develop the 

record keeping system, conduct the 

pre-field data collection, and 

perform data entry. 

Supervising Individual who will Structural engineer (may Structural engineer Selects and modifies the Data 

Engineer provide the 

technical expertise 

necessary to run 

the RVS program. 

be the Program 

Manager). 

with a background in 

seismic evaluation and 

risk assessments. 

Understands RVS 

methodology and its 

technical basis as 

described in FEMA P155. 

Collection Form. Determines the 

key seismic code adoption dates and 

benchmark years. Determines cutoff score (with RVS Authority and 

Program Manager). May train the 

screeners. Available for screeners to 

consult with during field screening. 

Reviews completed forms. Assists in 

interpreting the results of the 

program. 

Level 1 Individual who will Civil or structural Receives appropriate Performs Level 1 field screening. 

Screener conduct Level 1 

screenings of 

buildings. 

engineer, architect, 

design professional, 

building official, 

construction contractor, 

facility manager, 

firefighter, architectural 

or engineering student, 

or another individual 

with a general familiarity 

or background in 

building design or 

construction. 

FEMA P-154 training. 

Level 2 Individual who will Civil or structural Receives appropriate Performs Level 1 and Level 2 field 

Screener conduct both Level 

1 and Level 2 

screenings of 

buildings. 

engineering professional, 

architect, or graduate 

student with background 

in seismic evaluation or 

design of buildings. 

FEMA P-154 training. screenings. 

If the RVS program will be used to help establish a hazardous building 

mitigation program for a community, then the information obtained in the 

RVS should be as complete as possible. This would benefit the RVS 

Authority in establishing the scope and need of such a mitigation program 

and will lend a high degree of confidence that decisions are based on the best 

FEMA P-154 2: Planning and Managing A Successful 

Rapid Visual Screening Program 

2-5 
available information regarding the seismic vulnerability of the buildings. In 

this case, a thorough search for building information during the pre-field 

planning stage will be warranted and should be budgeted for accordingly. 

Other uses for RVS may include getting order-of-magnitude results to help 

focus concerns on vulnerable buildings. This could be accomplished without 

spending resources to research building information and instead rely on field 

determination of building type and age. In this type of program, the 

Supervising Engineer’s quality assurance effort may be larger so that the 

information recorded by the screeners can be checked. 

If the RVS Authority plans to notify owners of low-scoring buildings and 

either inform them of the building risk or possibly even require the owner to 

comply with an ordinance, the administrative costs of running the program 

will be more than if the screening program is used solely for potential 

seismic damage estimation. This is because the notification process, as well 

as increased quality assurance efforts, will require additional resources. 

In general, an RVS program will offer an opportunity to collect valuable 

information about nonstructural features of buildings. Although deemed 

very important in high seismic regions, in areas of low seismicity, 

nonstructural hazards are typically less significant, but they can be important 

for life-safety considerations in a large rare earthquake. Heavy exterior 

cladding and parapets have dislodged during past earthquakes and killed 

passers-by. Nonstructural ceilings, light fixtures, heavy cabinets, and shelves 

can also injure occupants and block exitways. Glass shards from untempered 

windows and doors can also be hazardous, particularly if located near 

emergency exits. Failure of nonstructural components has also been shown 

to cause delays in helping communities return to normal functionality. 

2.3.2 Deciding Which Buildings to Screen 

The RVS Program Manager may decide that because of budget, time, or 

other constraints, priorities should be set and certain areas within the region 

should be surveyed immediately, whereas other areas can be surveyed at a 

later time because they are assumed to be less hazardous. An area may be 

selected because it contains an older building stock and may have a higher 

density of potentially seismically hazardous buildings relative to other areas. 

For example, an area with older buildings within the RVS Authority region 

that consists mainly of unreinforced masonry buildings may be of higher 

priority than a newer area with mostly warehouse facilities, or a residential 

section of a city consisting of wood frame single-family dwellings. 

2-6 2: Planning and Managing A Successful FEMA P-154 

Rapid Visual Screening Program 
 

The Program Manager may also decide that only buildings with certain 

attributes, such as a particular building type or occupancy, will be screened. 

For example, it may be decided to screen only school buildings. 

2.3.3 Combining Level 1 and Level 2 Screening 

A Level 1 screening is performed for each building considered within the 

RVS program. The optional Level 2 screening collects information about 

additional structural features affecting risk and provides refined Score 

Modifiers. A background in seismic evaluation or seismic design of 

buildings is needed in order for the screener to be able to identify these 

additional features. 

Performing the Level 2 screening adds cost because the Level 2 screening 

adds additional time, and the screener must be a structural engineer or other 

qualified professional (see Table 2-1). If the Level 2 screening occurs at the 

same time as the initial Level 1 screening, the added time per building is 

typically around 5-15 minutes. If the Level 2 screening is a follow-up to an 

earlier Level 1 screening, the added time per building is much greater 

because travel time must be repeated, and the Level 2 screener may need to 

redo the Level 1 screening. Hourly compensation for Level 2 screeners may 

be higher because of their necessary qualifications. 

Various permutations of Level 1 and Level 2 screenings are described below. 

	 Level 1 only. In this approach, only Level 1 screenings are performed. 

This type of program will maximize the potential number of buildings 

screened at a minimum cost point. Screener qualifications are lower for 

Level 1 screeners, increasing the potential pool of participants. This may 

increase the need for additional Supervising Engineer review time to 

validate the results from Level 1 screeners. 

	 Level 1 with Level 2 on higher priority buildings. The added cost of the 

Level 2 screening is reserved for high priority buildings. High priority 

buildings are those with certain attributes, such as a particular building 

type or occupancy as identified during pre-field activities. This program 

will yield valuable Level 2 information on previously selected high 

priority buildings for a minimal additional cost. 

	 Level 1 with Level 2 as part of a second round on a subset of buildings. 

A follow-up screening with Level 2 is performed for buildings based on 

building type or the building’s Final Score as determined by the Level 1 

screening. For example, a subset of the total portfolio of buildings may 

be established from buildings with Final Scores within a given range 

FEMA P-154 2: Planning and Managing A Successful 

Rapid Visual Screening Program 

2-7 
above and below the cut-off score. Level 2 screenings of these particular 

buildings may change the action required from “No Detailed Stuctural 

Evaluation Required” to “Detailed Structural Evaluation Required,” or 

vice versa. The added cost of the Level 2 screening per building is more 

than it would be if it were performed as part of the first round of 

screening because familiarization with the building, travel time, and the 

Level 1 review may need to be repeated. An advantage is that the 

number of detailed evaluations required may be reduced, benefiting the 

overall project results. 

	 Level 1 and Level 2 for all buildings. This option requires that all 

members of the screening team be structural engineers or other qualified 

professionals. If the RVS Authority has few buildings to screen or a 

large budget with which to screen them, and experienced engineers are 

available to perform the screenings, it may be appropriate to perform 

both Level 1 and Level 2 screenings of all the buildings. Although this 

approach will likely lead to the most accurate results, it will likely come 

with the highest cost as well. With a fixed budget, this may mean fewer 

buildings can be screened. 

Some programs may wish to conduct screening programs that are as simple 

as possible, and may wish to base screening scores solely on the Basic Score 

associated with each building being screened, or similarly, the Minimum 

Score. This simplified approach is not recommended and is not expected to 

provide the RVS Authority with meaningful or accurate data on the seismic 

hazard of their building stock. 

2.3.4 Determining Screeners 

Potential RVS screeners for Level 1 range from individuals with a general 

familiarity or background in building design or construction to experienced 

engineers and architects. Engineers and architects are likely to be more 

costly on an hourly basis than nonprofessionals, but this cost may be offset 

by the efficiency of the screener in the field, and the increased accuracy of 

the screenings, which in turn reduces the Supervising Engineer’s effort. Of 

course, if the decision has been made to perform Level 1 and Level 2 

screenings of all buildings at the same time, then all the screeners must be 

engineers or other qualified professionals. 

Level 1 screeners should be generally familiar with the design and 

construction of buildings. This could include knowledge or hands-on 

experience with the structural elements of a building or historical interest in 

building materials or construction practices. All Level 1 and Level 2 

2-8 2: Planning and Managing A Successful FEMA P-154 

Rapid Visual Screening Program 
 

screeners should receive the appropriate amount of FEMA P-154 training to 

help ensure competency. 

2.3.5 Extent of Pre-Field Data Collection 

Pre-field data can include building information stored in assessor, building 

department, or municipal files, as well as data from Sanborn maps, previous 

studies, soils information, and construction documents. Data collection can 

be time consuming; however, it can be extremely useful in reducing the total 

field time and can increase the reliability of data collected in the field. A 

good example of valuable pre-field data is the age, or design date of a 

building. This might be readily available from building department files but 

is much more difficult to estimate from the street. Another example is the 

FEMA Building Type, which is often concealed behind architectural finishes. 

It may be possible to determine the building type from a review of available 

construction drawings. 

Depending on the type of supplemental data available, pre-field data 

collection may take up to 75 minutes per building (for example, if a thorough 

review will be performed including determining soil type, reviewing permit 

files, and reviewing construction documents or Sanborn maps) or as little as 

15 minutes per building (for example, to determine soil type, confirm there 

are no permit files available, and perform a quick search on the internet for 

possible additional information). 

The Program Manager should explore sources of information that are likely 

to contain useful information on the buildings to be screened. For example, 

the community may already have a Geographic Information System (GIS) 

database with building age and building type, and drawings may be available 

for some or all of the buildings. An estimate can then be made about how 

much time per building will be spent on pre-field data collection. 

Time spent on acquisition and review of the pre-field data is often the most 

difficult portion to estimate in developing a preliminary budget. The 

unknowns are great, as are the implications. If not given sufficient attention 

during budget development, it can result in adjustments during the program 

and affect the desired results. 

2.3.6 Electronic Scoring 

The Program Manager can decide to incorporate the use of electronic scoring 

as part of the RVS program. Important considerations include whether the 

RVS program includes a large number of buildings and whether the 

FEMA P-154 2: Planning and Managing A Successful 

Rapid Visual Screening Program 

2-9 
 

seismicity in the area to be screened is relatively constant over the area or 

varies from the median seismicity of the appropriate Data Collection Form. 

The paper-based RVS procedure uses a coarse gradation of the seismicity by 

dividing the country into regions of Low, Moderate, Moderately High, High, 

and Very High seismicity. In some areas, these coarse gradations may 

overestimate or underestimate the seismic hazard, which in turn affect the 

building score. Areas that have a large difference between the site-specific 

seismicity and the median seismicity considered by the Low, Moderate, 

Moderately High, High, and Very High seismicity paper forms will gain the 

most benefit in terms of accuracy of results with the use of electronic 

scoring. In addition, regions that include more than one level of seismicity 

will benefit because slight changes in seismicity within the region may not 

require changing the Data Collection Form when using electronic scoring. 

One such system available is FEMA P-154 Rapid Observation of 

Vulnerability and Estimation of Risk (ROVER) (FEMA, 2014). FEMA P154 ROVER is software developed by the Applied Technology Council 

(ATC) for FEMA and uses FEMA 154 Second Edition methodology. Other 

uses of electronic scoring will require effort to develop tools specific to the 

RVS program. When considering the use of electronic scoring, the Program 

Manager should take into account the availability of resources to develop and 

implement the electronic scoring system. If the types of buildings to be 

screened as part of the RVS program are similar, the development of the 

electronic scoring could be streamlined since the methodology would not 

need to be developed for all building types. However, once the electronic 

scoring system is developed for the first building type, adapting it for other 

building types will be less time consuming. 

Another important consideration for government agencies is the availability 

of the appropriate technology platform to implement electronic scoring. 

Purchase of hardware for a government entity can be involved. In general, 

hardware and software used in a government effort has to be owned by the 

entity; personal equipment is not usually utilized. This is not an issue for 

private entities, but may be an important consideration when determining if a 

contractor or government personnel perform the evaluations. 

2.3.7 Updating Existing Second Edition Screening Programs 

RVS is a tool for initiating mitigation programs. If a program has been 

implemented based on Second Edition results, the mitigation program should 

generally continue, and there will usually not be a need to redo the RVS 

program. 

2-10 2: Planning and Managing A Successful FEMA P-154 

Rapid Visual Screening Program 
 

 

If an RVS Authority has performed screening per the Second Edition and 

developed a set of scores for a portfolio of buildings, but has not yet begun to 

implement a mitigation program, the RVS Authority could continue to 

proceed using the Second Edition score. However, to obtain a more current 

assessment of relative risk and prioritization, the RVS Authority is 

encouraged to consider re-screening using the Third Edition methodology in 

some situations. These include how close the existing score was to the cutoff score, whether buildings had used the mid-rise or high-rise Score 

Modifiers, and if the buildings would be affected by the increased number of 

seismicity regions used in the Third Edition. Other factors that may lead the 

RVS Authority to consider re-screening might be new knowledge and data 

on seismicity. If the Final Score for a building screened using the Second 

Edition was within 0.5 points of the adopted cut-off score (i.e., it had a Final 

Score of 1.5 to 2.5), then re-screening these buildings should be considered. 

Buildings that used the mid-rise and high-rise Score Modifiers in the Second 

Edition may also be considered for re-screening since these Score Modifiers 

were eliminated in the Third Edition in favor of combining that effect with 

soil type Score Modifiers. Because the Third Edition now uses updated 

ground motion maps and has divided the older High seismicity region into 

three smaller regions, a re-screening of buildings that used the Second 

Edition High seismicity form may warrant consideration. 

2.4 Budget Development and Cost Estimation 

Many of the decisions that are made about the project scope will depend 

upon budget constraints. Funds should be allocated to cover the cost of the 

screenings, as well as for pre-field planning (8 to 40 hours), selection and 

optional modification of the Data Collection Form and determination of key 

seismic code adoption dates (8 to 12 hours), screener training (6 to 8 hours 

per screener), acquisition and review of pre-field building data (15 to 75 

minutes per building), quality assurance (5 to 10 minutes per building), 

administrative costs (10% of total costs), development of the record keeping 

system (2% to 5% of costs), and post-processing of the data (15 to 30 

minutes/building). See Chapter 7 for a suggested budget for an example 

RVS program. 

It is expected that the field screening of each building should take about 15 to 

30 minutes. If access to the interior is obtained, screenings may take an 

additional 15 to 30 minutes per building. If Level 2 screenings are 

performed, screenings may take an additional 5 to 15 minutes per building. 

The budget should also consider travel time. If the distance between 

buildings to be screened is large, then the corresponding costs will be greater. 

If the number of buildings to be screened is large, there is no urgency to 

FEMA P-154 2: Planning and Managing A Successful 

Rapid Visual Screening Program 

2-11 
completing the screening, and in-house staff who ordinarily visit the 

buildings for other reasons will do the screening, the RVS Authority may 

wish to integrate the data collection with the screeners’ day-to-day activities, 

thus avoiding the cost of special trips to the buildings. 

Opportunities exist to control the costs of an RVS program. Partnering with 

local colleges and universities to involve students as screeners can reduce 

costs. Upper division undergraduates and graduate students enrolled in 

programs that emphasize the design of building structures, such as civil, 

structural or architectural engineering, architecture, or construction can be 

well prepared to learn and implement screening procedures. 

Additionally, if a public program is being performed, training materials and 

an instructor could be coordinated through the state’s Earthquake Program 

Manager using FEMA’s National Earthquake Technical Assistance Program 

(NETAP). 

2.5 Pre-Field Planning 

During pre-field planning, the Program Manager compiles maps that 

document local seismic hazard information, investigates sources of available 

building information, engages local design professionals to advise on the 

special features and vulnerabilities of the existing building stock, develops a 

record-keeping system for the RVS program, and develops electronic scoring 

tools (if desired). 

Compiling and developing maps for the surveyed region is important in the 

initial planning phase as well as in scheduling of screeners. Maps of soil 

profiles will be useful for determining soil type prior to field screening. 

Maps of landslide, liquefaction, and fault rupture potential, if available, will 

also be useful for determining geologic hazards prior to field screening. 

Maps of lots will be useful in scheduling screeners and, as data are collected, 

in identifying areas with large numbers of potentially hazardous buildings. 

An important element of pre-field planning is research and the collection of 

available building data. Many municipalities maintain a database of building 

data for their building stock. This data can vary from basic address and 

occupancy type to GIS mapping and more detailed data on building 

construction, which will assist in the RVS screening. Using these data as the 

starting point for the RVS database is a natural time saver. Construction 

drawings are ideal and should be collected when available. Acquiring 

information from architectural and structural drawings may require the 

expertise of an experienced design professional. 

2-12 2: Planning and Managing A Successful FEMA P-154 

Rapid Visual Screening Program 
Another important phase of pre-field planning is interaction with the local 

design profession and building officials to gather information about local 

design practices, common seismic hazards, and the history of seismic code 

adoption and enforcement within the jurisdiction. Local design professionals 

may be able to identify falling hazards unique to the area, or may be able to 

focus the screening effort to particular buildings or areas of concern. 

Another factor that should be considered during pre-field planning is the 

development and administration of a record-keeping system for the screening 

process. The type of record keeping system selected will be a function of 

existing procedures and available funds as well as the ultimate goal of the 

screening. The record-keeping system may be as simple as a list or it may be 

an extension of an existing GIS database. The record-keeping system may in 

fact consist of several systems. 

Consideration should be given to developing an electronic database 

containing location and other building information. This information can be 

preprinted on the Data Collection Forms that the screeners use in the field. 

Following the field screening, data collected in the field is entered into the 

database. This process can be facilitated through the use of smart devices. 

Using an electronic application, such as FEMA P-154 ROVER, the screener 

can enter information directly into the database as it is collected in the field, 

including photographs and sketches. 

If an electronic database is not used for record-keeping, the completed forms, 

including pictures and sketches, can be scanned and saved. Another method 

that has been used is to generate a separate hardcopy file for each building as 

it is screened. In fact, the screening form can be reproduced on a large 

envelope with all supporting material and photographs stored inside. This 

solves any problems associated with attaching multiple sketches and 

photographs. Even so, the files may grow rapidly and become 

unmanageable. Even when electronic databases are used, or when scanned 

electronic files are saved, hardcopies of the screening forms and supporting 

material can be kept as a valuable supplement or backup to the electronic 

files. 

Part of this planning phase may include deciding how buildings are to be 

identified. Some suggestions are street address, assessor’s parcel number, 

census tract, and lot number or owner. 

If electronic scoring will be used, tools should be developed as described in 

Chapter 6. 

FEMA P-154 2: Planning and Managing A Successful 

Rapid Visual Screening Program 

2-13 
2.6	 Selection and Optional Modification of the Data 

Collection Form 

To download Word or pdf files 

of the Data Collection Forms, 

visit www.atcouncil.org. 

There are five Data Collection Forms, one for each of the following five 

regions of seismicity: Low, Moderate, Moderately High, High, and Very 

High. Each Data Collection Form has a Level 1 page and an optional Level 

2 page. Full-sized versions of each form are provided in Appendix B. 

Electronic versions of the forms are available on ATC’s website. 

The structural scoring system consists of a matrix of Basic Scores (one for 

each FEMA Building Type and its associated seismic force-resisting system) 

and Score Modifiers to account for observed attributes that modify seismic 

performance. The five forms vary from each other only in the values of these 

Basic Scores and Score Modifiers and the Level 2 pounding criteria. The 

Basic Scores and Score Modifiers are based on (1) time-dependent seismic 

design and construction practices in the region; (2) attributes known to 

decrease or increase seismic resistance capacity; and (3) maximum 

considered ground motions for the seismicity region under consideration. 

The Basic Score, Score Modifiers, and Final Score all relate to the 

probability of building collapse, should the maximum ground motions 

considered by the RVS procedure occur at the site. Final Scores typically 

range from 0 to 7, with higher scores corresponding to better seismic 

performance. 

The scoring system in the Third Edition considers risk-targeted (MCER) 

ground motions. These ground motions are consistent with the “BSE-2N” 

ground motions specified in ASCE/SEI 41-13, Seismic Evaluation and 

Retrofit of Existing Buildings (ASCE, 2014). 

2.6.1	 Determination of Seismicity Region 

To select the appropriate Data Collection Form, it is first necessary to 

determine the seismicity of the region that is to be screened. If the RVS 

program covers a large geographic area, different seismicity regions may 

apply for different building sites. The seismicity region can be determined 

by one of two methods: 

1.	 Find the county covering the surveyed region on the seismicity maps 

provided in Appendix A, and identify the corresponding seismicity 

region. 

2.	 Determine the seismicity of the site using site-specific values of seismic 

hazard for MCER ground motions and Soil Type B as provided by the 

U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). An online tool for obtaining sitespecific values of spectral acceleration response for short-period, SS, and 

2-14 2: Planning and Managing A Successful FEMA P-154 

Rapid Visual Screening Program 
one-second, S1, is available at http://earthquake.usgs.gov 

/designmaps/usapp/. When using this tool, the design code reference 

document should be set to 2013 ASCE 41, the earthquake hazard level to 

BSE-2N, and the site soil classification to Site Class B – “Rock,” as 

shown in Figure 2-2. The location of the site is defined using either 

latitude and longitude or street address. Using the provided values SS and 

S1 by the tool (see Figure 2-3), Table 2-2 can then be used to select the 

appropriate seismicity region, assuming that the highest seismicity level 

defined by the parameters in Table 2-2 shall govern. 

Figure 2-2 Input tool for determining site-specific seismicity using the USGS online tool (USGS, 

2013a). 

The site-specific approach of the second method, implemented by the 

Supervising Engineer, is preferred as it enables the user to determine 

seismicity based on a building’s specific location. In contrast, each county 

shown in the Appendix A maps is assigned its seismicity designation on the 

basis of the highest seismicity in that county, even though it may only apply 

to a small portion of the county. 

2.6.2 Optional Modification of the Data Collection Form 

The Data Collection Form can be used as it is presented in this Handbook or 

modified by the Program Manager and Supervising Engineer according to 

the needs of the program. Therefore, another aspect of the screening 

planning process is to review the Data Collection Form to determine if all 

FEMA P-154 2: Planning and Managing A Successful 

Rapid Visual Screening Program 

2-15 
 

required data are represented or if modifications should be made to reflect 

the needs and special circumstances of the program. 

Figure 2-3 Output summary report from USGS online tool for determining sitespecific seismicity (USGS, 2013a). 

Table 2-2 Seismicity Region Determination from MCER Spectral 

Acceleration Response 

Seismicity Region 

Spectral Acceleration 

Response, SS (short-period, 

or 0.2 seconds) 

Spectral Acceleration 

Response, S1 (long-period, 

or 1.0 second) 

Low less than 0.250g less than 0.100g 

Moderate greater than or equal to 

0.250g but less than 0.500g 

greater than or equal to 

0.100g but less than 0.200g 

Moderately High greater than or equal to 

0.500g but less than 1.000g 

greater than or equal to 

0.200g but less than 0.400g 

High greater than or equal to 

1.000g but less than 1.500g 

greater than or equal to 

0.400g but less than 0.600g 

Very High greater than or equal to 

1.500g 

greater than or equal to 

0.600g 

Notes: g = acceleration of gravity in horizontal direction 

2-16 2: Planning and Managing A Successful FEMA P-154 

Rapid Visual Screening Program 
 

 

For example, an RVS Program Manager can choose to define additional 

occupancy classes such as “parking structure” or “multi-family residential.” 

The RVS Program Manager can choose to add a field for the screener to note 

building number if, for example, the buildings being screened are on a 

college campus. There may also be an exterior falling hazard common to the 

area being screened. The Supervising Engineer can determine that 

liquefaction, landslide, and fault rupture are not significant hazards in the 

area being screened, and can recommend that these considerations be 

removed from the form. 

During the Data Collection Form modification process, it is critically 

important that the Basic Scores and Score Modifiers and the Level 2 

statements not be changed. 

2.6.3 Determination of Key Seismic Code Adoption Dates 

One of the key issues that must be addressed in the planning process is the 

determination of: (1) the year in which seismic codes were initially adopted 

and enforced by the local jurisdiction; and (2) the year in which significantly 

improved seismic codes were adopted and enforced (this latter year is known 

as the benchmark year). 

On the Very High, High, Moderately High, and Moderate seismicity forms, 

Basic Scores are provided for buildings built after the initial adoption of 

seismic codes, but before substantially improved codes were adopted 

(benchmark year). This generally corresponds to buildings designed based 

on the Uniform Building Code (UBC) in the period between 1941 and 1975. 

Score Modifiers designated as “Pre-Code” and “Post-Benchmark” are 

provided, respectively, for buildings built before the adoption of codes and 

for buildings built after the adoption of substantially improved codes. In 

Low seismicity regions, the Basic Scores have been calculated assuming the 

buildings were built without consideration of seismic codes. For buildings in 

these regions, the Score Modifier designated as “Pre-Code” is not applicable 

(N/A), and the Score Modifier designated as “Post-Benchmark” is applicable 

for buildings built after the adoption of seismic codes. 

In some jurisdictions, seismic anchorage requirements for heavy cladding 

have been adopted and enforced. Determining the dates that these 

requirements were adopted and enforced enables the screener to determine 

whether observed heavy cladding is a falling hazard or whether it is likely to 

be properly braced, and therefore should not be flagged during screening as a 

falling hazard. 

FEMA P-154 2: Planning and Managing A Successful 

Rapid Visual Screening Program 

2-17 
Therefore, as part of this review process, the Supervising Engineer should 

identify the following: (1) the year in which seismic codes were first adopted 

and enforced in the area to be screened; (2) the “benchmark” year in which 

significantly improved seismic code requirements were adopted and enforced 

for each building type considered by the RVS procedure; and (3) the year in 

which the community adopted seismic anchorage requirements for heavy 

cladding. 

Benchmark improvements are associated with building code years where 

significant provisions were introduced addressing particular seismic 

performance concerns. Examples include the wall-to-diaphragm connections 

introduced for tilt up (PC1) buildings in the 1997 Uniform Building Code 

(UBC; ICBO, 1997) and steel moment frames introduced in the Emergency 

Provisions of the 1994 UBC (ICBO, 1994) following observations made of 

beam-column connection damage in the Northridge earthquake. 

The Supervising Engineer should confer with the Chief Building Official, 

plan checkers, and other local design professionals to identify the years in 

which the local jurisdiction initially adopted and enforced seismic codes (if 

ever) for the building types considered by the RVS procedure. Since 

municipal codes are generally adopted by the city council, another source for 

this information, in many municipalities, is the city clerk’s office. If the 

Supervising Engineer in Very High, High, Moderately High, and Moderate 

seismicity regions is unsure of the year(s) in which codes were initially 

adopted, but does know that the region has traditionally both adopted and 

enforced the UBC, the default year for all but one building type is 1941 (the 

default year specified in the Multi-hazard Loss Estimation Methodology, 

Earthquake Model, HAZUS-MH MR4 Technical Manual (FEMA, 2009a)). 

The one exception is tilt-up (PC1) buildings, for which it is assumed that 

seismic codes were initially adopted in 1973, the year in which walldiaphragm (ledger) connection requirements first appeared in the Uniform 

Building Code (ICBO, 1973). 

Historically, the Standard Building Code (SBC) by the Southern Building 

Code Congress (SBCC) was used in many parts of the Southeast. In many 

areas of the East Coast and the Midwest, the Basic Building Code was used. 

The name of this reference evolved over the years as it was administered by 

the Building Officials Code Administrators International (BOCA) from 

BOCA Basic Building Code to Basic National Building Code to BOCA 

National Building Code (NBC). In some regions of the country, seismic 

design provisions under BOCA and SBCC were not enforced until the early 

1990s. If codes other than the UBC apply to the region of interest, then it is 

2-18 2: Planning and Managing A Successful FEMA P-154 

Rapid Visual Screening Program 
suggested that a default code adoption year of 1992 be used for all building 

types. 

In addition to determining the year in which seismic codes were initially 

adopted and enforced, the Supervising Engineer must also determine the 

benchmark years in which substantially improved seismic codes were 

adopted and enforced for the various building types. Table 2-3 provides the 

benchmark years for NBC/SBC and UBC for each FEMA Building Type. 

Benchmark years are also shown for the International Building Code (IBC) 

which more recently combined and replaced the NBC, SBC, and UBC. The 

IBC should only be used if the jurisdiction did not adopt the NBC, SBC or 

UBC. If one of these codes has been both adopted and enforced in the area 

being screened, the Supervising Engineer may select the benchmark years for 

each building type from the column for that code. If the area has both 

adopted and enforced a set of codes not listed in the table, the Supervising 

Engineer must determine the benchmark years based on an understanding of 

when the seismic codes were substantially improved for the various building 

types. If the area has not both adopted and enforced any seismic codes, no 

benchmark year is applicable. In this case, the screeners should be directed 

not to use the Post-Benchmark Score Modifiers. 

The Supervising Engineer must also determine the year in which anchorage 

requirements for cladding were adopted and enforced. Heavy cladding 

installed prior to the year noted is considered an exterior falling hazard. 

Once the Supervising Engineer has determined the dates corresponding to the 

initial adoption and enforcement of seismic codes and the benchmark years, 

and to the initial adoption of anchorage requirements for heavy cladding, 

these years should be inserted on the Quick Reference Guide in Appendix B, 

repeated here as Table 2-4. 

Table 2-4 has been created to facilitate the use of the Data Collection Form. 

In order to consider the lapse in time that typically occurs between design 

date and year built, the Supervising Engineer may choose to add a few years 

to each date so that the screener can compare the year built directly to the 

years on the Quick Reference Guide. 

FEMA P-154 2: Planning and Managing A Successful 

Rapid Visual Screening Program 

2-19 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Table 2-3 RVS Benchmark Years for FEMA Building Types (based on ASCE/SEI 41-13) 

FEMA Building Type 

Model Building Seismic Design Provisions 

National Building 

Code/ Standard 

Building Code 

Uniform Building 

Code 

International 

Building Code 

W1 Light wood frame single- or multiplefamily dwellings of one or more stories 

in height 

1993 1976 2000 

W1A Light wood frame multi-unit, multistory residential buildings with plan 

areas on each floor of greater than 

3.000 square feet 

1 1997 2000 

W2 Wood frame commercial and 

industrial buildings with a floor area 

larger than 5,000 square feet 

1993 1976 2000 

S1 Steel moment-resisting frame 

buildings 1

 19942 2000 

S2 Braced steel frame buildings 1

 1997 2000 

S3 Light metal buildings 1 1

 2000 

S4 Steel frame buildings with concrete 

shear walls 1993 1994 2000 

S5 Steel frame buildings with 

unreinforced masonry infill walls 1 1

 2000 

C1 Concrete moment-resisting frame 

buildings 1993 1994 2000 

C2 Concrete shear wall buildings 1993 1994 2000 

C3 Concrete frame buildings with 

unreinforced masonry infill walls 1 1

 2000 

PC1 Tilt-up buildings 1

 1997 2000 

PC2 Precast concrete frame buildings 1 1

 2000 

RM1 Reinforced masonry buildings with 

flexible floor and roof diaphragms 1

 1997 2000 

RM2 Reinforced masonry buildings with 

rigid floor and roof diaphragms 1993 1994 2000 

URM Unreinforced masonry bearing wall 

buildings 1 1 1 

MH Manufactured housing 3 3 3 

1

 No benchmark year. 

2

 Steel moment-resisting frame shall comply with the 1994 UBC Emergency Provisions, published September/October 

1994. 

3 The model building codes in this table do not apply to manufactured housing. In California, relevant requirements 

appeared in the Mobile home Parks Act, the California Health and Safety Code, and the California Code of 

Regulations. They evolved between 1985 and 1994; the year 1995 is recommended here as the benchmark year for 

California. In other states, the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development’s Installation Standards required 

tie-downs after October 2008. The year 2009 is recommended here as the benchmark year for states other than 

California. 

2-20 2: Planning and Managing A Successful FEMA P-154 

Rapid Visual Screening Program 
Table 2-4 Quick Reference Guide from Appendix B 

FEMA Building Type 

Year Seismic 

Codes 

Initially 

Adopted and 

Enforced 

Benchmark Year 

when Codes 

Improved 

W1 Light wood frame single- or multiple-family dwellings of one or 

more stories in height 

W1A Light wood frame multi-unit, multi-story residential buildings 

with plan areas on each floor of greater than 3,000 square feet 

W2 Wood frame commercial and industrial buildings with a floor 

area larger than 5,000 square feet 

S1 Steel moment-resisting frame 

S2 Braced steel frame 

S3 Light metal frame 

S4 Steel frame with cast-in-place concrete shear walls 

S5 Steel frame with unreinforced masonry infill walls 

C1 Concrete moment-resisting frame 

C2 Concrete shear wall 

C3 Concrete frame with unreinforced masonry infill walls 

PC1 Tilt-up construction 

PC2 Precast concrete frame 

RM1 Reinforced masonry with flexible floor and roof diaphragms 

RM2 Reinforced masonry with rigid floor and roof diaphragms 

URM Unreinforced masonry bearing-wall buildings 

MH Manufactured housing 

Anchorage of Heavy Cladding 

Year in which seismic anchorage requirements were adopted: 

2.6.4 Determination of Cut-Off Score 

Use of the RVS methodology on a community-wide basis enables the RVS 

Authority to divide screened buildings into two categories: (1) those that are 

expected to have acceptable seismic performance; and (2) those that may be 

seismically hazardous and should be studied further. This requires that the 

RVS Authority determines, preferably as part of the pre-planning process, an 

appropriate cut-off score. 

A score of 2.0 is suggested as a cut-off for standard occupancy buildings, 

based on present seismic design criteria. Using this cut-off level, buildings 

having a score of 2.0 or less should be investigated by a design professional 

experienced in seismic design. In some cases, a higher cut-off score may be 

warranted for critical or essential facilities. A higher score indicates a 

FEMA P-154 2: Planning and Managing A Successful 

Rapid Visual Screening Program 

2-21 
smaller probability of collapse. It does not, however, indicate a greater 

probability of other performance objectives being met, such as continued 

operation. See Section 5.3 for additional guidance on selecting an 

appropriate cut-off score. 

2.7 Qualifications and Training for Screeners 

Level 1 screenings can be performed by a wide array of individuals, 

including civil engineers, structural engineers, architects, design 

professionals, building officials, construction contractors, facility managers, 

firefighters, architecture and engineering students, or other individuals with a 

general familiarity or background in building design or construction. 

These individuals will need to be trained to ensure consistent, high quality 

collection of data and uniformity of decisions among screeners. Training 

materials and an instructor can be coordinated through the state’s Earthquake 

Program Manager using FEMA’s NETAP. 

Training should include discussions of seismic force-resisting systems and 

how they behave when subjected to seismic loads, how to identify building 

irregularities, how to complete the Level 1 Data Collection Form, what to 

look for in the field, and how to account for uncertainty. 

It will be beneficial if the trainees, in conjunction with a professional 

engineer experienced in seismic design, can simultaneously score buildings 

of several different types and compare results. This will serve as a 

“calibration” for the screeners. This process can be accomplished in a 

classroom setting with photographs of actual buildings used as examples. 

Prospective screeners can review the photographs and perform the RVS 

procedure as though they were on the sidewalk. Upon completion, the class 

may discuss the results and students can compare how they did in relation to 

the rest of the class and the professional engineer. Alternately, the training 

can include a field exercise with real buildings. This can be easily 

accomplished using the training facility building as the example building. 

The screeners can be broken into small groups with each group 

independently reviewing the exterior and possibly the interior of the building, 

if access to mechanical and unfinished spaces can be secured. The groups 

can then return to the training room and inform the others how they scored 

the building, what structure type was selected and Score Modifiers applied. 

The Level 2 screening is designed assuming that the screening will be 

performed by a civil or structural engineering professional, architect, or 

graduate student with a background in seismic evaluation or design of 

buildings. Training should be provided to these individuals to provide them 

Desirable attributes for potential 

screeners: 

 Interest and knowledge 

about buildings and 

structures 

 Some understanding and 

appreciation of the effects 

of earthquakes 

 Willingness to be trained in 

RVS 

 Attention to detail 

 Previous ATC-20 training 

2-22 2: Planning and Managing A Successful FEMA P-154 

Rapid Visual Screening Program 
with an understanding of how the FEMA P-154 methodology works and how 

to complete the Level 1 and Level 2 Data Collection Forms. For graduate 

students, the Supervising Engineer should determine on a case-by-case basis 

whether the student has the necessary knowledge and experience to perform 

Level 2 screenings. 

Screener information, such as names, email addresses, and other contact 

information, should be archived with the survey results. This will allow for 

follow-ups during the final stages of reviewing the data and also for future 

references. 

2.8 Acquisition and Review of Pre-Field Building Data 

Information on the structural system, age or occupancy (that is, use) of the 

building may be available from supplemental sources. These data, from 

assessor and building department files, insurance (Sanborn) maps, and 

previous studies, should be reviewed and collated for a given area before 

commencing the field survey for that area. It is recommended that this 

supplemental information be either written directly on the Data Collection 

Forms as it is retrieved or entered into an electronic database. The advantage 

of a database is that selected information can be printed directly onto Data 

Collection Forms for the screeners to use in the field. Following the field 

screening, data collected in the field can be entered into the database and 

later used to generate reports and maps. 

Some sources of supplemental information are described in Sections 2.8.1 

through 2.8.7. 

2.8.1 Assessor’s Files 

Assessor’s files may contain information about the floor area and the number 

of stories of a building. These files often also include coordinates and zip 

codes that can be used to pre-populate an electronic database. The 

construction type may be indicated, but should be verified during screening. 

Property type and building style may also be available and can provide clues 

about the specific use of the property and its exterior wall finishes. Caution 

must be exercised with the age of a building retrieved from assessor’s files, 

because usually assessor’s files contain the year that the building was first 

eligible for taxation. Because the criteria for this may vary, the date may be 

several years after the building was designed or constructed. If no other 

source of information is available, this year will give a good estimate of the 

period during which the building was constructed. However, this date should 

not be used to establish conclusively the code under which a building was 

designed. Assessor’s offices may also have parcel or lot maps, which may be 

FEMA P-154 2: Planning and Managing A Successful 

Rapid Visual Screening Program 

2-23 
useful for locating sites or may be used as a template for sketching building 

adjacencies on a particular city block. 

2.8.2 Building Department Files 

The extent and completeness of information in building department files will 

vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. For example, in some locations all old 

files have been removed or destroyed, so there is no information on older 

buildings. In general, files (or microfilm) may contain permits, plans, and 

structural calculations required by the city. Sometimes the building 

department files contain information about a building’s occupancy and use. 

If building plans or calculations are included in the building department files, 

an engineer can review them to determine building type. 

2.8.3 Sanborn Maps and Parcel Maps 

These maps, published primarily for the insurance industry since the late 

1800s, exist for about 22,000 communities in the United States. The Sanborn 

Map Company stopped routinely updating these maps in the early 1960s, and 

many communities have not kept these maps up-to-date. Thus, they may not 

be useful for newer construction. However, the maps may contain useful 

data for older construction. They can be found at the library or in some cases 

in building department offices. There exist services that provide digitized 

libraries of Sanborn maps with search engines and GIS capabilities. 

Figure 2-4 shows a Sanborn map and photographs of the associated city 

block. Building descriptions obtained from the Sanborn maps are also 

included. Figures 2-5 and 2-6 show keys to identifiers on Sanborn maps. 

Information found on a Sanborn map includes height of building, number of 

stories, year built, thickness of walls, building size (square feet), type of roof 

(tile, shingle, composite), building use (dwelling, store, apartment), presence 

of garage under structure, and structural type (wood frame, fireproof 

construction, adobe, stone, concrete). The structural type can be helpful in 

identifying the FEMA Building Type. Although the information on Sanborn 

maps may be useful, it is the responsibility of the screener to verify any 

information derived from these maps in the field. 

Parcel maps are also available and contain lot dimensions. If building size 

information cannot be obtained from another source such as the assessor’s 

file, the parcel maps are particularly helpful for determining building 

dimensions in urban areas where buildings cover the entire lot. However, 

even if the building does not cover the entire lot, it will be easier to estimate 

building dimensions if the lot dimensions are known. 

2-24 2: Planning and Managing A Successful FEMA P-154 

Rapid Visual Screening Program 
Figure 2-4 Sanborn map and corresponding aerial photograph of a city block. 

FEMA P-154 2: Planning and Managing A Successful 

Rapid Visual Screening Program 

2-25 
Figure 2-5 Key to Sanborn map symbols. 

2-26 2: Planning and Managing A Successful FEMA P-154 

Rapid Visual Screening Program 
FEMA P-154 2: Planning and Managing A Successful 

Rapid Visual Screening Program 

2-27 

Figure 2-6 Detailed key to Sanborn map symbols. (From 

http://sanborn.umi.com/HelpFiles/key.html) 
2.8.4 Municipal Databases 

Many jurisdictions have made digital maps or databases available online for 

use by the general public. Figure 2-7 shows an example from a municipal 

database. 

Figure 2-7 Example of property details from City of Calabasas municipal 

database (from http://www.cityofcalabasas.com/departments 

/planning/). 

2-28 2: Planning and Managing A Successful FEMA P-154 

Rapid Visual Screening Program 
 

These databases provide general information on the various building sites 

within the jurisdiction. The level of detail of these databases varies greatly. 

Some of them may provide information on building age, square footage, and 

occasionally, the construction type and presence of geologic hazards. These 

databases are expected to become more detailed over time, and hence, more 

useful to RVS. 

2.8.5 Previous Studies 

In a few cases, previous building inventories or studies of hazardous 

buildings or hazardous nonstructural elements (e.g., parapets) may have been 

performed. These studies may be limited to a particular structural or 

occupancy class, but they may contain useful maps or other relevant 

structural information and should be researched, collected, and reviewed. 

Other important studies might address related seismic hazard issues such as 

liquefaction or landslide potential. Local historical societies may have 

published books or reports about older buildings in the community. Fire 

departments are often aware of the overall condition and composition of 

building interiors. 

2.8.6 Soil Information 

Soil Type, also known as Site Class, has a major influence on amplitude and 

duration of shaking, and thus structural damage. Generally speaking, the 

greater the depth of soil to bedrock at a site, the more damaging the 

earthquake motion will be. Table 2-5 provides measurable parameters that 

define soil type using the site class definitions of ASCE/SEI 7-10 (ASCE, 

2010). 

Soil type cannot be readily identified by visual methods in the field. The soil 

type should be identified during the planning stage and put into a readily 

usable map format for use during RVS. During the screening, or the 

planning stage, the soil type should be documented on the Data Collection 

Form by checking the correct soil type, as designated by the letters A through 

F. 

There are various sources of data for the soil conditions at a site, including 

geotechnical engineering reports. For the purpose of a rapid visual 

screening, the use of geotechnical engineering reports may be impractical. In 

some areas of the country, such as the San Francisco Bay Area, maps that 

provide the applicable soil types are publically available and can be used to 

determine site-specific soil type information. 

If soil maps of the area are not available, soil type can be estimated based on 

average shear wave velocity in the top 30 meters of soil, VS

30 . These values 

Many communities have developed 

building inventories that might be 

of value. For example, the Utah 

Division of State History includes 

valuable information about historic 

buildings and is accessible online at 

http://historicbuildings.utah.gov. 

Additionally, the state has 

performed a series of 

Reconnaissance Level and Intensive 

Level Surveys, which provide 

additional information about 

historic buildings. Available at 

http://heritage.utah.gov/history/bu 

ilding-surveys. 

FEMA P-154 2: Planning and Managing A Successful 

Rapid Visual Screening Program 

2-29 
 

 

have been derived using topographic slopes and using geological conditions 

of the surface soil. These values are available as maps or site-specific values 

from the U.S. Geological Survey web site http://earthquake.usgs.gov 

/hazards/apps/vs30/ (see Figure 2-8). 

Table 2-5 Soil Type Definitions 

Soil Type/Site 

Class Shear Wave Velocity1 

, VS 

30 

Standard Blow 

Count1 

, N 

Undrained Shear 

Strength of the 

upper 100ft1

, su 

A. Hard Rock VS 

30 > 5000 ft/s 

B. Rock 2500 ft/s < VS 

30 < 5000 ft/s 

C. Very Dense 

Soil and Soft 

Rock 

1200 ft/s < VS 

30 < 2500 ft/s N >50 su>2000 psf 

D. Stiff Soil 600 ft/s < VS 

30 < 1200 ft/s 15 < N <50 1000psf < su < 

2000 psf 

E. Soft Clay Soil VS 

30 < 600 ft/s N < 15 su < 1000 psf 

More than 10 feet of soft soil with plasticity index PI > 20, 

water content w > 40%, and su < 500 psf 

F. Poor Soil Soils requiring site-specific evaluations. 

 Soils vulnerable to potential failure or collapse under seismic 

loading, such as liquefiable soils, quick and highly-sensitive clays, 

collapsible weakly-cemented soils. 

 Thicker than 10 feet of peat or highly organic clay. 

 Very high plasticity clays (25 feet with PI > 75). 

 More than 120 ft of soft or medium stiff clays. 

1

 Average values. 

The USGS also provides a tool called OpenSHA Site Data Viewer/Plotter 

(http://opensha.org/apps-SiteData) to download and plot data and maps for 

site-related data from various sources. 

The most commonly encountered soil types are Soil Type C and Soil Type 

D. The average of these soil types is known as Soil Type CD. This average 

is used as the basis of the Basic Scores. If the soil type cannot be identified 

or estimated during the planning stage, Soil Type D should be assumed. 

Buildings on Soil Type F cannot be screened effectively by the RVS 

procedure, other than to recommend that buildings on this soil type be further 

evaluated by a geotechnical engineer and design professional experienced in 

seismic design. 

2-30 2: Planning and Managing A Successful FEMA P-154 

Rapid Visual Screening Program 
Figure 2-8 VS

30 map of Alaska from USGS website showing soil type (USGS, 

2013b). 

2.8.7	 Using Resources from the Internet and Other Available 

Tools 

The internet is home to vast amounts of information, including specific 

information about buildings. A web search of a specific building may reveal 

meaningful information about it, including its date of construction or 

information about a recent retrofit to it. 

Additional tools that can aid in the RVS effort are available on the internet. 

For example, satellite images found on the internet can be used to view 

buildings from above. From these images, screeners can identify plan 

irregularities that may be hidden when viewing the building at street level. 

These images from above may also reveal the presence or absence of parapet 

bracing. Maps found on the internet can be used to quickly view the exterior 

of buildings without leaving the office. This tool can be particularly useful 

for the quality assurance process as it can be used by the Supervising 

FEMA P-154 2: Planning and Managing A Successful 

Rapid Visual Screening Program 

2-31 
Engineer to verify number of stories, building type, and other building 

characteristics. 

Additional tools are expected to become available in the future. Information 

from the internet should always be verified during the field screening. 

2.9 Review of Construction Documents 

Whenever possible, construction documents for the buildings to be screened 

should be reviewed prior to the conduct of field work. The review of 

construction documents substantially improves the confidence in the 

determination of building type. It also greatly assists in determining building 

age and in identifying building irregularities. Appendix C provides a list of 

common symbols shown on structural drawings. Determining the FEMA 

Building Type from existing drawings often requires some familiarity in 

reading architectural and structural drawings that an experienced design 

professional would have. 

Some sources for obtaining construction documents include building 

departments, facilities managers, and building owner files. Building 

department records may include information about the original construction 

date and permitted work done over a number of years. Obtaining copies of 

files may involve getting permission from the original designers, but some 

information may be publically available over the counter. 

Facilities mangers and building owners often keep records of the 

construction documents for reference purposes. These are generally the 

easiest to obtain and should be requested first. Persistence in discovering 

these documents is generally worth the effort since conversations with those 

responsible for maintaining the building will often uncover valuable 

information. 

2.10 Field Screening of Buildings 

Rapid visual screening of buildings in the field can be carried out by 

individuals or teams of two. Teams of two provide the screeners an 

opportunity to discuss issues requiring judgment and to facilitate the data 

collection process. Using teams of two, however, increases the number of 

screeners needed and related costs. The benefit of pairing up an experienced 

engineer or architect with an inexperienced screener will be minor, except as 

a way of training the less experienced person. 

Relatively few tools or equipment are needed. Table 2-6 provides a list of 

items that may be needed in performing RVS as described in this Handbook. 

2-32 2: Planning and Managing A Successful FEMA P-154 

Rapid Visual Screening Program 
The Level 1 screening procedure is described in Chapter 3. The optional 

Level 2 procedure is described in Chapter 4. 

Table 2-6 Checklist of Field Equipment Needed for Rapid Visual Screening 

3 Field Equipment 

Binoculars, if high-rise buildings are to be evaluated 

Camera, preferably digital and spare batteries 

Clipboard for holding Data Collection Forms 

Copy of the FEMA P-154 Handbook 

Copies of the Quick Reference Guide and other reference guides (see Appendix 

B) 

Pen or pencil 

Straight edge (optional for drawing sketches) 

Graph paper (optional for drawing sketches) 

Flashlight for interior observations 

Manual or digital measuring device to assist in measuring distances and 

calculating building square footage 

Smartphone or tablet computer if using electronic tools for RVS review with spare 

batteries or car charger 

2.11 Quality Assurance 

The Supervising Engineer should provide quality assurance by reviewing the 

completed Data Collection Forms. The scope of the Supervising Engineer’s 

review depends on the scope of the screening and can include review of each 

form, spot checking of forms, or review of the compiled data. The 

Supervising Engineer may choose to check specific fields on every form or 

check every form for a certain building type. It is recommended that the 

forms for all failing buildings be reviewed by the Supervising Engineer. 

Some of this review should come early in the screening process to catch 

common errors and to allow for additional training of individual screeners 

that may be making too many mistakes or are repeatedly unable to narrow 

down the building type. Overlooking quality assurance early in the RVS 

program can result in significant amounts of added effort later on that will 

potentially impact the budget and time frame of the project. 

The Supervising Engineer can perform this review using data and photos 

collected in the field, or the Supervising Engineer can go into the field to 

work with the screeners and check their work. Field involvement can be 

very beneficial. Pairing the Supervising Engineer with a less experienced 

screener at the start will be desirable as a training aid and will reduce the 

level of review required later. 

FEMA P-154 2: Planning and Managing A Successful 

Rapid Visual Screening Program 

2-33 
 

The extent of the Supervising Engineer’s role will be dependent on the 

qualifications of the screeners. If the screeners are not familiar with building 

design and if they have limited experience performing screenings, the 

Supervising Engineer will need to be more available for consultation during 

the screenings and will need to review the completed screening forms more 

closely. If the screeners are experienced engineers or architects, the 

Supervising Engineer's efforts will be less. The cost of more experienced 

screeners may be offset by the cost of the added work for the Supervising 

Engineer. 

In some programs, the Supervising Engineer may be assisted in performing 

quality assurance by additional experienced seismic design professionals. 

Reviewers should pay particular attention to “EST” (estimated) and “DNK” 

(do not know) marks on the forms, or screeners who circle too many building 

types. 

Some common mistakes made include the following: 

	 Incorrect assumptions regarding the FEMA Building Type, particularly 

when architectural finishes cover the structural framing, such as precast 

cladding over steel framing. 

	 Incorrect use of the Pre-Code and Post-Benchmark Score Modifiers. 

	 Selection of the wrong seismicity level form based on limits established 

by the Ss and S1 parameters. 

	 Use of the wrong or default soil type if this information is known or 

obtained for the project. 

	 Missing some of the possible situations that trigger one of the Vertical 

Irregularity Score Modifiers. 

	 Incorrectly applying the Minimum Score. 

2.12 Filing the Field Data in the Record-Keeping System 

The last step in the implementation of rapid visual screening is filing the 

RVS data in the record-keeping system established for this purpose. If 

FEMA P-154 ROVER is used to collect field data, then this step is 

unnecessary, as the data are already stored in a database when the field data 

are entered. Alternatively, if RVS data are recorded on paper they can be 

transcribed into FEMA P-154 ROVER’s database, which can serve as the 

record-keeping system. If the data are to be stored in file folders or 

envelopes containing data for each building that was screened, the process is 

2-34 2: Planning and Managing A Successful FEMA P-154 

Rapid Visual Screening Program 
straightforward, and requires careful organization. If the data are to be stored 

in digital form, it is important that the data input and verification process 

include either double entry of all data, or systematic in-depth review of print 

outs (item-by-item review) of all entered data. 

FEMA P-154 2: Planning and Managing A Successful 

Rapid Visual Screening Program 

2-35 

Chapter 3 

Completing the 

Level 1 Data Collection Form 

3.1 Introduction 

This chapter provides instructions on how to complete the Level 1 Data 

Collection Form (Figure 3-1). It is assumed that pre-field planning activities 

(as described in Chapter 2) have already been conducted, including the 

selection of the Data Collection Form, based on the seismicity level of the 

area to be screened, and the determination of the soil type. Instructions for 

completing the optional Level 2 Data Collection Form are provided in 

Chapter 4. 

The Level 1 Data Collection Form is completed for each building screened 

through execution of the following steps: 

1.	 Verifying and updating the building identification information; 

2.	 Walking around the building to identify the number of stories and shape, 

and sketching a plan and elevation view on the Data Collection Form; 

3.	 Photographing the building; 

4.	 Determining and documenting occupancy; 

5.	 Reviewing the soil type and geologic hazards, as identified during the 

pre-field planning process; 

6.	 Identifying adjacency issues, building irregularities, and any potential 

exterior falling hazards; 

7.	 Adding any comments about unusual conditions or circumstances that 

may affect the screening; 

8.	 Identifying the building material, gravity load-carrying system, and 

seismic force-resisting system to identify the FEMA Building Type 

(entering the building, if possible, to facilitate this process) and circling 

the Basic Score on the Data Collection Form; 

9.	 Circling the appropriate seismic performance attribute Score Modifiers 

(e.g., irregularities, design date, and soil type) on the Data Collection 

Form; 

FEMA P-154 3: Completing the Level 1 Data Collection Form 3-1 
Figure 3-1 Level 1 Data Collection Form (High seismicity). 

3-2 3: Completing the Level 1 Data Collection Form FEMA P-154 
 

10. Determining the Final Level 1 Score, SL1 (by adjusting the Basic Score 

from Step 8 with the Score Modifiers identified in Step 9); and 

11. Completing the summary section at the bottom of the form (i.e., Extent 

of Review, Other Hazards and Action Required). 

Full-sized copies of the Level 1 Data Collection Forms (one for each 

seismicity region) are provided in Appendix B. The form has been designed 

to be filled out from top to bottom, with a minimum of writing (most items 

can simply be checked or circled). The following sections provide 

instructions and guidance on completing sections of the form from top to 

bottom. 

3.2 Building Identification Information 

Space is provided in the upper right-hand portion of the Level 1 Data 

Collection Form (see Figure 3-2) to document building identification 

information (address, building name, use, latitude and longitude, and sitespecific ground motion values), name of the screener(s), and the date and 

time of the screening. As indicated in Chapter 2, it is desirable to develop 

and document this information during the pre-field planning stage, if 

possible. This information may be filled out manually, or it can be preprinted 

on a peel-off label or printed directly onto the Data Collection Form. 

Figure 3-2 Building Identification Information portion of Level 1 Data 

Collection Form. 

3.2.1 Building Identification 

Proper identification and location of the building is critically important for 

subsequent use in hazard assessment and mitigation by the RVS Authority. 

As described in Chapter 2, the structure can be identified by street address, 

parcel number, building owner, or some other scheme. However, it is 

recommended that as a minimum the street address and zip code be recorded 

on the form. Zip code is important because it is universal to all 

municipalities, and as such, is an especially useful item for later collation and 

summary analyses. Assessor parcel number or lot number is also useful for 

FEMA P-154 3: Completing the Level 1 Data Collection Form 3-3 
jurisdictional record-keeping purposes and can be entered in the “Other 

Identifiers” field on the form. 

Caution should be exercised for buildings that contain multiple tenants with 

individual addresses for the same building structure. In these instances, it is 

suggested to include the full range of address numbers for the building, for 

example “6200 – 6250,” and complete the screening for the building using 

one form. 

Assuming the identification information is provided directly on the form, 

such information should be verified in the field. If the building identification 

information is not developed during the pre-field planning stage, it must be 

completed in the field. 

3.2.2 Latitude and Longitude and Site Seismicity 

Fields are provided to document the latitude and longitude of the building 

and to document SS and S1 values, which describe the site-specific ground 

motion. These fields may be completed during pre-field planning. Latitude 

and longitude can be determined using tools found on the internet. Once 

latitude and longitude are known, S1 and SS can be determined as described in 

Section 2.6. 

It is not expected that the screener will use these fields while performing the 

screening. However, they may be useful later for data keeping purposes or if 

electronic scoring will be performed (as described in Chapter 6). If a GPS 

device is available to the screener while at the building site, the screener 

should verify the latitude and longitude information on the form. 

3.2.3 Screener Identification 

The screener should be identified by name, initials, or some other type of 

code. At some later time, it may be important to know who the screener was 

for a particular building. The date and time of the screening should also be 

noted. In particular, noting the time of the screening will be helpful later in 

matching digital photos to the appropriate Data Collection Form. 

3.3 Building Characteristics 

Space is provided to document important building characteristics (see Figure 

3-3). It is desirable to develop and document this information during the prefield planning stage, if at all possible. This information may be filled out 

manually, or it can be preprinted on a peel-off label or printed directly onto 

the Data Collection Form. Assuming the information is compiled during prefield planning, the information should be verified in the field. If the 

3-4 3: Completing the Level 1 Data Collection Form FEMA P-154 
information is not compiled during the pre-field planning stage, it must be 

completed in the field. 

Figure 3-3 Building Characteristics portion of the Level 1 Data Collection 

Form. 

3.3.1 Number of Stories 

The amount of damage a building may sustain is sometimes related to the 

height of a structure. The number of stories is a good indicator of the height 

of a building (approximately 9-to-10 feet per story for residential, 12 feet per 

story for commercial or office). 

Counting the number of stories may not be a straightforward issue if the 

building is constructed on a hill or if it has several different roof levels. As a 

general rule, the largest number (that is, count floors from the downhill side 

to the highest roof) should be used. The comment section and the sketch can 

be used to indicate variations in the number of stories. 

The number of stories below grade should also be indicated if the screener 

can verify the number. Collecting this information is particularly useful if 

the community decides later to investigate flooding issues. 

3.3.2 Year Built and Code Year 

Information pertaining to the design and code year of the building is one of 

the key elements of the RVS procedure. Building age is tied directly to 

design and construction practices. Therefore, age can be a factor in 

determining FEMA Building Type and thus can affect the Final Score. This 

information is not typically available at the site and thus should be obtained 

in advance of the fieldwork. 

If information on “year built” is not available during pre-field planning (see 

Chapter 2), a rough estimate of the building’s age can be made on the basis 

of architectural style and building use. Appendix D provides guidance on 

determining building attributes from the street. An additional source of 

obtaining the building vintage is from a dedication placard or plate. These 

are more common for public buildings and usually are located near the main 

entrance of the building. If the year built is only an approximation, check the 

“EST” box to indicate the entry is estimated. 

Code year is the year of the building code that was used to design the 

building. The building may have been designed several years before it was 

FEMA P-154 3: Completing the Level 1 Data Collection Form 3-5 
 

constructed and thus designed to an earlier code with different requirements 

for seismic detailing. Code year can generally only be determined from the 

drawings during pre-field planning (see Chapter 2). If code year is not 

known, it should be left blank. 

3.3.3 Total Floor Area 

The total floor area, in some cases available from building department or 

assessor files (see Chapter 2), will most likely be estimated by multiplying 

the estimated area of one story by the total number of stories in the building. 

The length and width of the building can be paced off in the field or 

estimated during the pre-field planning stage from Sanborn or other parcel 

maps or satellite images. Repeating modules on the façade of the building 

can also be measured and extrapolated to determine the building dimensions. 

Total floor area may be useful at a later time for estimating the value of the 

building or for estimating occupancy load. If the value is an estimate, “EST” 

should be noted. 

3.3.4 Buildings with Additions or Multiple Parts 

Many buildings are comprised of more than one independent structural 

framing system divided by joints. In some cases, the joints are provided to 

separate portions of buildings that were constructed at the same time. This 

may be to separate portions of the building that have different structural 

systems, and thus different responses to lateral forces or portions of buildings 

with different total height or story heights. Alternately, buildings can be 

divided to accommodate expansion and contraction caused by temperature 

changes. 

Buildings can also be considered as having multiple portions when additions 

are constructed to expand the original building. Building additions may be 

constructed as independent structures with separation joints or may be 

integrally tied to the original building. 

Information obtained in advance of the screening may be useful in 

identifying buildings that have additions. Section 3.14.5 provides guidance 

for assessing whether to evaluate a building as a single building or as 

multiple buildings. 

When additions are present, the “Yes” box should be checked and the year 

the addition was built should be indicated. “EST” should be added if the 

year built for the addition is estimated. 

3-6 3: Completing the Level 1 Data Collection Form FEMA P-154 
3.4 Photographing the Building 

A space is provided on the Level 1 form to place a photograph of the 

building (see Figure 3-4). At least one photograph of the building should be 

taken for identification purposes. The screener is not limited to one 

photograph. If possible, the screener should take a photograph of each side of 

the building and of any important features (such as observed irregularities 

and falling hazards). These additional photographs will be helpful to the 

Supervising Engineer during the quality assurance phase. 

Figure 3-4 Photograph and Sketch portions of the Level 1 Data Collection 

Form. 

Large buildings are difficult to photograph from the street and the camera 

lens introduces distortion for high-rise buildings. If possible, the photograph 

should be taken from a sufficient distance to include a full building elevation, 

FEMA P-154 3: Completing the Level 1 Data Collection Form 3-7 
 

such that adjacent faces are included. Two examples are shown in Figure 

3-5. A wide angle lens may be helpful. Strong sunlit façades should be 

avoided, as harsh contrasts between shadows and sunlit portions of the 

façade will be introduced. Lastly, if possible, the photographed elevation of 

the building should not be obscured by trees, vehicles or other objects, as 

they obscure the lower stories. 

Figure 3-5 Sample sketches and photos. 

It is expected that screeners will most often use a digital camera. In this case, 

one or two of the photographs can later be electronically added to the Data 

Collection Form. Additional photographs can be saved in an electronic file 

or printed and arranged on an additional page to be saved along with the 

paper copy of the Data Collection Form. 

3-8 3: Completing the Level 1 Data Collection Form FEMA P-154 
3.5 Sketching the Building 

A place is provided on the Level 1 Data Collection Form to draw a sketch of 

the building (see Figure 3-4). As a minimum, the screener should draw a 

plan sketch. An elevation sketch may also be useful in indicating significant 

features. Drawing the sketch is an important part of the screening procedure 

because many of the building’s attributes will be revealed to the screener as 

the screener systematically views all aspects of the building in order to 

prepare the sketch. A photograph contains more detailed information than a 

sketch, but the sketch can better emphasize important features. 

The plan sketch should show the shape of the building from above and any 

plan irregularities. It can also show the location of the building on the site 

and the relative or approximate distance to adjacent buildings. The plan 

sketch can be made during pre-field planning using a Sanborn map or an 

image of the building from above, such as a satellite image. In this case, the 

sketch should be verified in the field. More often, the sketch will be drawn 

by the screener in the field. Screeners with access to a smart device will find 

it helpful to view the satellite image of the building while performing the 

screening. This is especially valuable when access between buildings is not 

available. 

The elevation sketch should show the number of stories, any steps in 

elevation, and any vertical irregularities. If all sides of the building are 

different, an elevation can be sketched for each side. If all sides are similar, 

the screener can note that the sketch is typical of all sides. The sketch can 

also be used to emphasize special features such as significant cracks, falling 

hazards, and floor levels where pounding could occur. 

The length and width of the building can be paced off or estimated (during 

the planning stage) from Sanborn maps, other parcel maps, or satellite 

images. Repeating modules on the façade of the building can also be 

measured and extrapolated to determine the building dimensions. These 

estimated dimensions should be included on the sketch. It will not usually be 

practical for the screener to draw the sketch to scale while in the field. 

Screeners may want to sketch in pencil on a separate sheet of gridded paper. 

In this case, the sketch can be scanned and added to the form in the same 

manner as photographs. 

Sample photos and related sketches are shown in Figure 3-5. 

FEMA P-154 3: Completing the Level 1 Data Collection Form 3-9 
3.6 Building Occupancy 

The occupancy of a building refers to its use. Although it does not usually 

bear directly on the structural hazard or probability of sustaining major 

damage, the occupancy of a building is of interest and used when 

determining priorities for mitigation. 

3.6.1 Occupancy Classes 

Nine general occupancy classes have been identified as easy to recognize in a 

rapid visual screening and are defined below (Figure 3-6). These occupancy 

classes have characteristics that are easily identifiable from the street, they 

generally represent the broad spectrum of building uses in the United States, 

and they are similar to the occupancy classes used in the Multi-hazard Loss 

Estimation Methodology, Earthquake Model, HAZUS-MH MR4 Technical 

Manual (FEMA, 2009a) and the International Building Code (ICC, 2012). 

Figure 3-6 Occupancy portion of the Level 1 Data Collection Form. 

It is strongly encouraged that for RVS Programs where data collection is 

being performed with the intent of inputting the data into HAZUS, the 

HAZUS Building Occupancy Classes be used when evaluating the building 

stock. The ROVER, Rapid Observation of Vulnerability and Estimation of 

Risk (FEMA, 2011), software provides a module, RedROVER, containing an 

export file for HAZUS’s Advanced Engineering Building Module (FEMA, 

2003). This enables mapping of FEMA 154 RVS occupancy classes to 

HAZUS occupancy classes. 

The nine occupancy classes in RVS are described below: 

	 Assembly. Places of public assembly are those where large groups of 

people might be gathered in one room at the same time. A threshold of 

300 people is typically used in building codes, and it is used here, as 

well. Examples are theaters, auditoriums, community centers, 

performance halls, and churches. 

	 Commercial. The commercial occupancy class refers to retail and 

wholesale businesses, financial institutions, restaurants, and parking 

structures. 

	 Emergency Services. The emergency services class is defined as any 

facility that would likely be needed in a major catastrophe. These 

include police and fire stations, hospitals, and communications centers. 

3-10	 3: Completing the Level 1 Data Collection Form FEMA P-154 
 

 

	 Industrial. Included in the industrial occupancy class are factories, 

assembly plants, and heavy manufacturing facilities. 

	 Office. Typical office buildings house clerical, management, and 

professional services occupancies. 

	 Residential. This occupancy class refers to residential buildings such as 

houses, townhouses, dormitories, motels, hotels, apartments and 

condominiums, and residences for the aged or disabled. Indicate the 

number of dwelling units in the building on the line next to the word 

“Residential.” 

	 School. This occupancy class includes all public and private educational 

facilities from nursery school to university level. 

	 Utility. This occupancy class includes all buildings that house public or 

private utilities, such as power plants, water treatment facilities, and 

electric substations. 

	 Warehouse. This occupancy class includes both large warehouses where 

items are stored and commercial warehouses where items are sold. 

The occupancy class that best describes the building being evaluated should 

be circled on the form. If there are several types of uses in the building, such 

as commercial and residential, all applicable types should be circled. The 

actual use of the building can be written in the Building Identification portion 

of the form. For example, one might indicate that the building is a restaurant 

on the line titled “Use” in the upper right of the form. For occupancy, the 

screener would circle “Commercial.” 

If none of the defined classes seem to fit the building, an explanation should 

be included in the Comments section. 

3.6.2 Additional Designations 

Of additional interest are whether the building is historic, whether it houses 

government services, and whether it is designated as an emergency shelter. 

These are not occupancy classes, but may be used for setting priorities for 

hazard mitigation. 

	 Historic. This will vary from community to community. It is included 

because historic buildings may be subjected to specific ordinances and 

codes. 

	 Government. This includes local, state, and federal non-emergency 

related buildings. 

FEMA P-154 3: Completing the Level 1 Data Collection Form 3-11 
 

 

 

 Shelter. Some buildings may be designated as shelters to be used in the 

event of an emergency. The community may set a higher priority on 

upgrading these buildings. 

If the building is any of these, the screener should circle the occupancy and 

check the appropriate box. For example, when screening a school designated 

as an emergency shelter, the screener will circle “School” and check the 

“Shelter” box. 

3.7 Soil Type 

As indicated in Chapter 2, the soil type should be identified and documented 

on the Data Collection Form (see Figure 3-7) during pre-field planning. If 

the soil type has not been determined as part of that process, it needs to be 

identified by the screener during the building site visit. If there is no basis 

for classifying the soil type, “DNK” should be selected and Soil Type D 

should be assumed. 

Figure 3-7 Soil Type portion of the Level 1 Data Collection. 

3.8 Geologic Hazards 

Liquefaction, landslide potential, and surface fault rupture are three types of 

geologic hazards. Any one of these three conditions can increase a 

building’s risk of sustaining damage and collapse during an earthquake. If 

any of these hazards are identified at a building site, a Detailed Structural 

Evaluation of the building is triggered. 

Geologic hazards may be identified and documented on the Data Collection 

Form (see Figure 3-8) during pre-field planning. 

Figure 3-8 Geologic Hazards portion of the Level 1 Data Collection Form. 

The presence of possible landslide hazards should be evaluated or confirmed 

during the field visit by assessing the distance between the building to a steep 

slope either above or below the building grade level. As a rule of thumb, if 

the height of the slope is greater than the distance from the nearest side of the 

building to the slope, a potential landslide hazard should be marked on the 

form (see Figure 3-9). 

For each of the three geologic hazards, “Yes” or “No” should be circled 

depending on whether the geologic hazard exists at the building site. If the 

3-12 3: Completing the Level 1 Data Collection Form FEMA P-154 
Figure 3-9 Building with potential landslide hazard. 

presence of the geologic hazard has not been determined as part of the prefield planning process and cannot be determined during the screening, the 

screener should circle “DNK” (do not know). 

3.9 Adjacency 

The interaction between adjacent buildings can lead to several types of 

damage during earthquakes. When there is insufficient separation between 

buildings, they can pound together as they respond to ground shaking. In 

some cases, an addition may pound against the original building. See 

Section 3.14.5 for a discussion of how to screen buildings with additions. 

Another potential concern is falling hazards from an adjacent building. 

These can be chimneys, parapets, walls, appendages, tanks, signs, or any 

other building components that if dislodged, could fall onto the building 

being screened or block major means of egress from the building being 

screened. 

In the Level 1 screening, the intent is to capture these situations by checking 

the appropriate box, which is either “Pounding” or “Falling Hazards from 

Taller Adjacent Building” (see Figure 3-10). If either of these conditions is 

identified, a Detailed Structural Evaluation of the building is triggered. 

Figure 3-10 Adjacency portion of the Level 1 Data Collection Form. 

The Level 1 pounding criteria is described in the Level 1 Pounding 

Reference Guide which is provided in Appendix B. The guide provides 

minimum separation gaps between adjacent buildings (see Figure 3-11). In 

Very High seismicity regions, the minimum gap between the two buildings is 

2 inches per story. In High seismicity regions, the minimum gap is 1 1/2 

inches per story. In Moderately High seismicity regions, the minimum gap is 

1 inch per story. In Moderate and Low seismicity regions, the minimum gap 

is 1/2 inch per story. 

FEMA P-154 3: Completing the Level 1 Data Collection Form 3-13 
 

 

Figure 3-11 Definition of separation gap between adjacent buildings. 

For example, for two adjacent six-story buildings, the minimum gap is 12” in 

Very High seismicity, 9” in High seismicity, 6” in Moderately High 

seismicity, and 3” in Moderate or Low seismicity. 

Pounding is considered when the actual gap is less than the minimum 

separation gap and when at least one of three additional conditions also 

applies: 

1.	 Floors are separated vertically by more than two feet, as shown in Figure 

3-12. Damage and potential collapse are considered to be more likely 

when the floor mass of one building can directly impact the columns or 

walls of the adjacent building. 

Figure 3-12 Schematic illustration of floors not aligning vertically. 

2.	 One building is two or more stories taller than the adjacent building, as 

illustrated in Figure 3-13. Damage may concentrate in the taller building 

at the roof level of the shorter building. 

3.	 The building is at the end of a row of three or more buildings, as 

illustrated in Figure 3-14. Higher demands are imposed on the end 

building when the adjacent building moves toward it and because it does 

not have a building on the other side to balance the loads. Higher levels 

of damage have been observed at end buildings in past earthquakes. 

3-14	 3: Completing the Level 1 Data Collection Form FEMA P-154 
 

Figure 3-13 Schematic illustration of buildings of different height. 

Figure 3-14 Schematic illustration of end buildings. 

If the building meets any of the three criteria above, the screener checks the 

“Pounding” box and a Detailed Structural Evaluation is triggered in the 

“Other Hazards” and “Action Required” fields at the bottom of the Level 1 

form. Similarly, if falling hazards from an adjacent building are identified, 

the screener checks the “Falling Hazards” box and a Detailed Structural 

Evaluation is triggered in the “Other Hazards” and “Action Required” fields 

at the bottom of the Level 1 form. 

3.10 Irregularities 

Buildings are often irregular for architectural, functional, or economic 

reasons. Often the first floor of a building is taller than the stories above, as 

in the case of a building with commercial space on the ground floor and 

apartments above. A building on a corner may have many windows on the 

two sides facing the street, but have solid walls on the other two sides. 

Irregularities such as these adversely affect the seismic performance of a 

building by concentrating demands at certain floor levels or elements. The 

concentrated demands can lead to damage, failure, and, in some cases, 

collapse. 

Building irregularities are generally grouped into two categories: vertical 

irregularities and plan irregularities. For the Level 1 RVS procedure, vertical 

irregularities are further divided into severe vertical irregularities (those that 

have a significant adverse effect on building performance) and moderate 

FEMA P-154 3: Completing the Level 1 Data Collection Form 3-15 
 

 

vertical irregularities (those that have a less significant adverse effect on 

building performance). The RVS score takes into account irregularities by 

including negative Score Modifiers whose values depend on the type and 

severity of the building’s irregularities. 

The following sections describe how to identify vertical and plan 

irregularities during the Level 1 screening. If any irregularities are observed, 

the screener describes them using the Irregularities portion of the form (see 

Figure 3-15). 

Figure 3-15 Irregularity portion of the Level 1 Data Collection Form. 

3.10.1 Vertical Irregularities 

Vertical irregularities can affect all building types. There are seven common 

types of vertical irregularities, as shown in the Vertical Irregularity Reference 

Guide (see Appendix B, Table B-4) and as described below: 

	 Sloping Site. If the building is on a steep hill, as illustrated in Figure 

3-16, a problem may exist because the horizontal stiffness along the 

lower side may be different from the uphill side. In addition, in the upslope direction, the stiff short columns attract more of the seismic shear 

forces and may fail. For all FEMA Building Types other than light wood 

frame buildings (W1), the Moderate Vertical Irregularity Score Modifier 

should be applied when there is at least a one-story slope from one side 

of the building to the other. For W1 buildings, the effect of a sloping site 

is more severe and the Severe Vertical Irregularity Score Modifier should 

be applied when there is at least a one-story slope from one side of the 

building to the other. 

Weak and/or Soft Story. A weak story exists when one story has less 

strength (fewer walls or columns) than the story above or below it. A 

soft story exists if the stiffness of one story is dramatically less than that 

of most of the others. In a rapid visual screening, it is not possible to 

quantitatively determine and compare the strength and stiffness of each 

story. Certain observable conditions, however, provide clues that a soft 

or weak story may exist. If any of the conditions described below exist, 

the screener checks the vertical irregularity box on the form and indicates 

the type and severity of the irregularity. If there is doubt about whether 

any of the following conditions exist, it is best to be conservative and 

assume that it does exist. Use an asterisk and the comment section to 

explain the source of uncertainty. 

3-16	 3: Completing the Level 1 Data Collection Form FEMA P-154 
 

Figure 3-16 Illustration of a building on a sloping site. 

o	 Light wood frame residential buildings (W1) often have cripple 

walls. A cripple wall is a short wall that rests on the foundation and 

supports the floor and exterior walls. When cripple walls are 

unbraced, they are often the weakest part of the structure. A cripple 

wall is considered unbraced when there is no plywood sheathing. In 

this case, the walls are sheathed only with stucco or wood siding on 

the exterior side of the wall, as shown in Figure 3-17. It will not 

usually be possible for the screener to determine if a W1 building has 

unbraced cripple walls from a sidewalk survey. However, in the 

event that there is access to the crawl space and unbraced cripple 

walls are observed, the screener should note this condition. 

Unbraced cripple walls may sometimes be observed in garage spaces 

as well. Unbraced cripple walls are considered a moderate vertical 

irregularity. If the basement is occupied, consider this condition as a 

soft story and apply the Severe Vertical Irregularity Score Modifier. 

o	 For a wood framed home (W1) with occupied space over a garage, 

there are limited or short wall lengths on both sides of the garage 

opening, as shown in Figure 3-18. This is considered a severe 

vertical irregularity. 

o	 A wood framed multi-unit residential building (W1A) has an open 

front at the ground floor, such as for parking. Apartment buildings 

with this common condition are often referred to as “tuckunder” 

buildings (see Figure 3-19). Several past earthquakes in California 

have shown the vulnerability of this type of construction. This is 

considered a severe vertical irregularity. 

FEMA P-154 3: Completing the Level 1 Data Collection Form 3-17 
 

 

Cripple wall behind 

exterior finish 

Figure 3-17 Schematic illustration of a W1 building with cripple wall. 

Figure 3-18 Schematic illustration of a W1 building with occupied space 

over a garage. 

Figure 3-19	 Schematic illustration of building with a soft-story condition 

where parking requirements result in large openings. 

o	 One of the stories has fewer walls or columns (or more windows and 

openings) than the floor above it. In many commercial buildings, the 

3-18	 3: Completing the Level 1 Data Collection Form FEMA P-154 
 

 

first story is weak/soft due to large window openings for display 

purposes. Figure 3-20 shows an industrial building with large 

openings at the ground floor. These large openings cause the first 

floor piers to be narrower than the piers at upper stories resulting in a 

weak story. This is considered a severe vertical irregularity. 

Figure 3-20	 Illustration of a building with a soft ground story due to 

large openings and narrow piers. 

o	 One of the stories is particularly tall compared to the other stories. 

Figure 3-21 shows a building with a ground story significantly taller 

than the stories above. This difference in story height causes the 

piers to be taller at the first floor than at the upper stories resulting in 

a soft story. This is considered a severe vertical irregularity. 

Figure 3-21 Illustration of a building with a soft ground story due to tall 

piers. 

FEMA P-154 3: Completing the Level 1 Data Collection Form 3-19 
	 Out-of-Plane Setback. The out-of-plane setback irregularity occurs when 

the seismic force-resisting system at one story is not aligned vertically 

with the seismic force-resisting system above or below. One such 

example is shown in Figure 3-22. In more severe cases, the walls at an 

upper story are outboard of the walls below causing the diaphragm to 

cantilever as shown in Figure 3-23. The out-of-plane setback irregularity 

is usually identified based on the exterior walls. The exterior walls of the 

building, however, may not correctly indicate the location of the seismic 

force-resisting elements, such as when there are interior shear walls that 

are not visible from the exterior. If there is doubt about whether an outof-plane setback exists, it is best to be conservative and assume that it 

does exist. Out-of-plane setbacks are considered severe vertical 

irregularities and should be considered where the setback is greater than 

or equal to 2 feet. 

	 In-Plane Setback. This condition occurs when elements of the seismic 

force-resisting system at upper levels are offset from elements of the 

seismic force-resisting system at lower levels. It is usually observable in 

braced frame and shear wall buildings. Damage can become concentrated 

in the horizontal elements that connect the offset lateral elements and in 

the vertical elements that occur below the lateral elements at the upper 

levels. This is considered a moderate vertical irregularity. Figure 3-24 

shows an example where the shear walls at the ground story are offset 

from the shear walls above due to the loading dock location. 

Figure 3-22 Illustration of a building with out-of-plane setback at the third 

story. 

3-20	 3: Completing the Level 1 Data Collection Form FEMA P-154 
 

Figure 3-23	 Illustration of a building with out-of-plane setback where the 

upper floors cantilever out over the smaller ground story 

footprint. 

	 Short Column/Pier. When some columns (or wall piers) are shorter than 

the typical columns, these shorter, stiffer columns attract more of the 

lateral load. Consequently, they can experience significant damage. 

Short columns can occur when there are partial height infill walls that 

shorten the clear height of the column or when a slab has been added 

between floor levels (e.g., for a mezzanine floor). Columns or piers that 

are narrow compared to the depth of the spandrels are also a concern. In 

these cases, damage concentrates in the columns rather than the beams, 

increasing the potential for loss of vertical support and subsequent 

collapse. Short columns or piers are considered severe vertical 

irregularities. This deficiency is typically seen in older concrete and 

steel buildings. Figure 3-25 shows three short column conditions. 

	 Split Levels. This condition occurs where floor or roof levels in one part 

of the building do not align with floor or roof levels in other parts of the 

buildings. Damage can become concentrated in the elements that 

connect the offset floor level to the vertical framing. This is considered a 

moderate vertical irregularity and is shown in Figure 3-26. 

FEMA P-154 3: Completing the Level 1 Data Collection Form 3-21 
Shear walls above are 

offset from shear walls at 

ground story 

Figure 3-24 Illustration of a building with an in-plane setback. 

In some cases, a single building will have multiple vertical irregularities, 

such as the building shown in Figure 3-27. In this case, the screener should 

note all observed irregularities on the Data Collection Form and apply the 

Vertical Irregularity Score Modifier as described in Section 3.15.1. 

3.10.2 Plan Irregularities 

Although plan irregularity can occur in all building types, the primary 

concern lies with wood, tilt-up, pre-cast frame, reinforced masonry, and 

unreinforced masonry construction. Damage at roof connections may 

significantly reduce the capacity of a gravity load-carrying element, leading 

to partial or total collapse. There are five common types of plan 

irregularities, as shown in the Plan Irregularity Reference Guide (see Table 

B-5 in Appendix B) and as described below: 

	 Torsion. This condition applies when a building has a definable or good 

lateral-load resistance in one direction but not the other, or when there 

are major stiffness eccentricities in the seismic force-resisting system 

which may cause twisting (torsion) around a vertical axis. Plan 

irregularities causing torsion are especially prevalent among corner 

3-22	 3: Completing the Level 1 Data Collection Form FEMA P-154 
 

(c)

(a) 

Short columns 

with reduced 

height Typical column 

height 

Deep Spandrels 

(b) 

Figure 3-25 Schematic illustrations of buildings with short columns due to: 

(a) irregular wall openings; (b) deep spandrels; and (c) infill 

walls. 

Infill Walls 

Figure 3-26 Schematic illustration of a split level irregularity. 

FEMA P-154 3: Completing the Level 1 Data Collection Form 3-23 
Setback 

Soft Story 

Figure 3-27 Building with multiple vertical irregularities: setbacks and a soft first story. 

buildings, in which the two adjacent street sides of the building have 

significant window openings, whereas the other two sides are generally 

solid. Figure 3-28 shows an unreinforced masonry bearing wall building 

with similar pier and window patterns at all stories on all sides. This 

building does not have a plan irregularity. Figure 3-29 shows a common 

condition where the front or street façade on the ground story has 

windows such as for a store, with the walls in a C-shaped configuration. 

This would be considered a plan irregularity. Figure 3-30 shows a 

building with windows on two adjacent sides and more solid walls on the 

other two sides. This would also be considered a plan irregularity. 

Figure 3-28 Illustration of a building without a plan irregularity. 

3-24 3: Completing the Level 1 Data Collection Form FEMA P-154 
Figure 3-29 Illustration of a building with the torsion plan irregularity due to 

the C-shaped configuration of walls at the ground floor. 

Figure 3-30	 Illustration of a corner building with the torsion plan irregularity 

due to L-shaped configuration of walls at the ground floor due 

to windows on two sides (visible in figure) and solid walls on 

two sides (hidden in the figure). 

	 Non-Parallel Systems. Wedge-shaped buildings, triangular in plan, on 

corners of streets not meeting at 90 degrees, are similarly susceptible to 

torsion and increased damage and collapse potential (see Figure 3-31). 

	 Reentrant Corners. Buildings with reentrant corners include those with 

long wings that are E, L, T, U, or + shaped, with projections of more than 

20 feet (see Figure 3-32, Figure 3-33, and Figure 3-34). Stress 

concentrations can develop at reentrant corners and lead to damage or 

collapse. In addition, these buildings are likely to experience torsion. 

Where possible, the screener should check to see if there is a seismic 

separation where the wings meet. If so, the two portions of the building 

can be screened separately with consideration for pounding. 

FEMA P-154 3: Completing the Level 1 Data Collection Form 3-25 
Figure 3-31 Building with a plan irregularity (non-parallel systems) due to its 

triangular footprint. 

Figure 3-32	 Plan views of various building configurations showing reentrant 

corners and large diaphragm openings; arrows indicate possible 

areas of damage. 

Figure 3-33 Building with a plan irregularity with two wings meeting at right 

angles. 

3-26	 3: Completing the Level 1 Data Collection Form FEMA P-154 
Figure 3-34 Illustration of a building with a reentrant corner plan irregularity. 

	 Diaphragm Openings. The floors and roof of a building have the 

important role of distributing seismic forces to the vertical elements of 

the seismic force-resisting system. Large openings in the floors or roof 

weaken the diaphragm and reduce its ability to transfer seismic forces. 

As a rule of thumb, a large opening is one that has a width of over 50% 

of the width of the diaphragm (see Figure 3-35). These openings occur 

for architectural features, such as roof skylights. 

	 Beams do not align with columns. This condition occurs when the 

exterior beams do not align with the columns in plan, as shown in Figure 

3-36. Typically, this applies to concrete buildings, where the perimeter 

columns are outboard of the perimeter beams. 

If the building being screened has a plan irregularity, the screener should 

check the plan irregularity box in the Irregularities section of the form and 

note the type of irregularity. 

Figure 3-35 Schematic illustration of large diaphragm openings. 

FEMA P-154 3: Completing the Level 1 Data Collection Form 3-27 
 

 

Figure 3-36	 Schematic illustration of a building with beams that do not align 

with columns. 

3.11 Exterior Falling Hazards 

Nonstructural falling hazards such as chimneys, parapets, cornices, veneers, 

overhangs, and heavy cladding can pose hazards to life safety if not 

adequately anchored to the building. Some of these are illustrated in Figure 

3-37. 

Although the basic seismic force-resisting system for the building may be 

adequate and require no further review, if the presence of such hazards may 

still be a danger to building occupants and passersby. Several boxes are 

provided in the Exterior Falling Hazards portion of the Data Collection Form 

to help the screener identify potential hazards (see Figure 3-38). 

Figure 3-37 Illustration of a building with parapets and other potential falling 

hazards, including canopy over loading dock and water tank on 

roof. 

3-28	 3: Completing the Level 1 Data Collection Form FEMA P-154 
Figure 3-38	 Exterior Falling Hazards portion of the Level 1 Data Collection 

Form. 

Falling hazards of major concern are: 

	 Unbraced Chimneys. Unbraced, unreinforced masonry chimneys are 

common in older masonry and wood frame dwellings. They are often 

inadequately tied to the structure and fall in moderate to strong shaking. 

If in doubt as to whether a chimney is braced or unbraced, assume that it 

is unbraced. 

	 Parapets. A parapet is the portion of the exterior wall or façade that 

extends above the roof. The primary concern is parapets constructed of 

unreinforced masonry, such as brick, stone, or concrete block. In an 

earthquake, these can break and fall onto the roof or out into the street. It 

is sometimes difficult to tell if a façade projects above the roofline, 

forming a parapet and, if there is a parapet, it is often difficult to tell if it 

is braced. Parapets often exist on three sides of the building, and their 

height may be visible from the back of the structure. In some cases, the 

presence of bracing may be verified using satellite imagery. If in doubt 

as to whether an unreinforced masonry parapet is braced or unbraced, 

assume that it is unbraced. 

	 Heavy Cladding or Heavy Veneer. Large heavy cladding elements, 

usually precast concrete or cut stone, may fall off the building during an 

earthquake if improperly anchored. The loss of panels may also create 

major changes to the building stiffness (the elements are considered 

nonstructural but may contribute substantial stiffness to a building), thus 

setting up plan irregularities or torsion when only some fall. (Glass 

curtain walls in which the area of glass exceeds the area of metal or 

stucco spandrel panels and column covers are not considered as heavy 

cladding in the RVS procedure.) Masonry veneer can also be a falling 

hazard concern if improperly anchored. The concern is greater with 

heavy veneer, such as full thickness bricks used as the façade material in 

front of wood frame construction, rather than adhered veneer that uses 

partial thickness masonry units. The existence of heavy cladding or 

heavy veneer is of concern if the connections were designed and installed 

before the jurisdiction adopted seismic anchorage requirements 

(normally based on forces that are twice that for gravity loads). The date 

of such code adoption will vary with jurisdiction and should be 

established by the Supervising Engineer in the planning stages of the 

FEMA P-154 3: Completing the Level 1 Data Collection Form 3-29 
RVS process (see Chapter 2). If the jurisdiction has not adopted cladding 

ordinances or the building predates adopted ordinances, then it should be 

indicated that heavy cladding hazards exist. If the building postdates the 

adopted ordinances, then the cladding connections may be properly 

designed and not pose a hazard. 

	 Appendages. Building appendages may fall off the building during an 

earthquake if improperly anchored. Such appendages include canopies 

and architectural elements that add detail and decorative interest to the 

façade. The concern is greater with larger elements that pose a significant 

falling hazard risk. The box should be checked only if heavier 

appendages exist. 

	 Other. The screener may observe a falling hazard that does not fit into 

any of the above categories. If so, the “Other” box should be checked 

and additional details should be provided in the space next to it and in the 

comments section, if needed. For example, tall and heavy roof 

equipment and components near the perimeter of the building, such as 

the elevated tank shown in Figure 3-37, could be considered an “Other” 

falling hazard. 

If any of the above nonstructural falling hazards exist, the appropriate box (or 

boxes) should be checked. Additional details can be provided in the 

comments section. Taking a photograph of the falling hazard is also 

recommended. The RVS authority may later use this information to develop 

a mitigation program. 

3.12 Damage and Deterioration 

The scoring system in RVS is established assuming that the building is 

constructed of sound materials. Deterioration of structural elements can have 

a significant impact on the expected performance of a building and therefore 

needs to be captured when performing a survey. 

Buildings that are poorly maintained and show obvious signs of deterioration 

due to weathering to their major structural elements are candidates for further 

investigation. 

Determination of the potential impact on performance is difficult at best 

since not all damage and deterioration is visible, nor is it easy to assess. Prior 

damage may be concealed by finishes or in areas not directly examined 

during a rapid visual screening. 

For a Level 1 screening, it is anticipated that the surveyor may not have 

sufficient time to fully assess the potential effects of damage and 

3-30	 3: Completing the Level 1 Data Collection Form FEMA P-154 
 

 

 

deterioration; however, this issue should not be ignored. The focus should be 

on examining the major elements of the seismic force-resisting system for 

significant damage that could weaken the building. 

The key question is whether the level of deterioration and damage rises to the 

level of “significant” and thus triggers a Detailed Structural Evaluation under 

the “Other Hazards” and “Action Required” boxes on the Level 1 form. This 

is best determined by an experienced engineer, but general guidance is 

provided below to assist the screener in conducting a RVS. 

Ideally, the focus should be on inspecting the major components of the 

seismic force-resisting system for signs of distress. Corroded steel columns, 

deteriorated mortar joints in a masonry wall, concrete walls with large cracks 

from previous earthquakes, and wood cripple walls with termite damage are 

examples of damage and deterioration that increase the probability of 

collapse of the building in a future earthquake. Deteriorated or compromised 

foundation elements or significant erosion of confining soils may also reduce 

the building’s ability to withstand earthquake loads. 

For the purpose of the Level 1 screening, where access to the interior of the 

building is limited, it is recommended that the screener focus on observable 

conditions such as the following: 

	 Is the building abandoned? An abandoned structure may have not had 

adequate maintenance. As a result, there is a greater likelihood of 

significant deterioration inside the structure that will not be observable 

during a rapid visual screening based on an exterior review only. 

	 Are there beams, floors, or roofs that are visibly sagging? 

	 Are there beams or columns that are visibly broken? 

	 Are there sloping floors or large exterior cracks that indicate significant 

settlement has occurred? 

	 Is there visible distress from prior earthquakes that has not been repaired 

(i.e., the building is leaning slightly or there are large x-cracks in the 

concrete or masonry walls)? 

	 Is there visible fire damage that has not been repaired? 

	 For wood buildings, is there extensive wood rot and/or water staining 

that is visible? 

	 For unreinforced masonry buildings, is the mortar eroding away, leaving 

areas of uneven depth? 

FEMA P-154 3: Completing the Level 1 Data Collection Form 3-31 
 

	 For concrete buildings, has the concrete been damaged or eroded such 

that the rebar is exposed? 

	 For steel buildings, are there members that are corroded? (Note that it is 

common for steel to appear rusted; the focus should be on members that 

actually have reduced cross-section due to corrosion.) 

	 Are there visible foundation elements with large cracks? 

	 Are foundation elements exposed due to significant erosion of adjacent 

soil? 

If the screener observes any of these conditions, or another example of 

visible damage or deterioration, the condition should be described in the 

comments section. The screener should also take additional photographs of 

the condition. 

Refer to Appendix F for additional guidance on assessing damage and 

deterioration for common building materials. 

3.13 Comments Section 

This section of the form is for recording any comments the screener may 

wish to make regarding the building, occupancy, condition, quality of the 

data, or unusual circumstances of any type. For example, if not all 

significant details can be effectively photographed or drawn, the screener 

could describe additional important information in the comments area. 

Comments may be made on building features that can be seen at or through 

window openings. If the screener is unsure of certain conditions, such as 

whether a vertical irregularity is severe or moderate, the source of the 

uncertainty should be described here. Other examples where comments are 

helpful are described throughout Chapter 3. If the screener elects to provide 

additional comments on a separate page, the “Additional sketches or 

comments on separate page” box should be checked to notify the Supervising 

Engineer that additional comments exist. 

3.14	 Identifying the FEMA Building Type and 

Documenting the Related Basic Score 

Two key characteristics of seismic performance are construction material 

(e.g., wood, concrete) and type of seismic force-resisting-system (moment 

frame, braced frame, or shear wall). A building classification system allows 

buildings with similar materials and seismic force-resisting systems to be 

grouped together, facilitating the fast identification of a building’s likely 

strengths and vulnerabilities, and thus the building’s expected performance 

during an earthquake. The FEMA P-154 RVS procedure groups the most 

3-32	 3: Completing the Level 1 Data Collection Form FEMA P-154 
common combinations of construction materials and seismic force-resisting 

systems in the United States into 17 types, referred to here as “FEMA 

Building Types.” Each FEMA Building Type has its own Basic Score for 

each seismicity region, providing a measure of the expected performance of 

each FEMA Building Type in each seismicity region. 

These 17 FEMA Building Types are based on the set of building types that 

were first defined in ATC-14, Evaluating the Seismic Resistance of Existing 

Buildings (ATC, 1987), and have since been updated and expanded in 

numerous FEMA guideline documents, including the first and second 

editions of FEMA 154, and in ASCE/SEI 41-13, Seismic Evaluation and 

Retrofit of Existing Buildings (ASCE, 2014) and the FEMA-funded HAZUS 

damage and loss estimation methodology HAZUS-MH MR4 Technical 

Manual (FEMA, 2009a). 

ASCE/SEI 41-13 defines a set of 25 building types, referred to as “Common 

Building Types.” This includes 16 of the 17 FEMA Building Types plus 

additional sub-classifications of certain framing types that specify that the 

roof and floor diaphragms are either rigid or flexible. Such distinctions in 

diaphragm flexibility are used less often within the FEMA P-154 system, 

accounting for the smaller number of FEMA Building Types. 

HAZUS defines a set of 36 building types, referred to as “Model Building 

Types.” The HAZUS Model Building Types include distinctions between 

low-rise, mid-rise, and high-rise buildings. Such distinctions in height are 

excluded from the 17 FEMA Building Types used here. The seventeenth 

FEMA Building Type, Manufactured Housing (MH), is similar to HAZUS’s 

Mobile Home (MH) Model Building Type, but is expanded to include 

nonresidential buildings, such as school portables. 

The RVS procedure is based on the premise that the building being screened 

is one of the 17 FEMA Building Types, and further, that the screener will be 

able to determine the FEMA Building Type from the street, or eliminate all 

those that it cannot possibly be. 

The building stock in the United States is very diverse, and there are many 

buildings that do not strictly conform to a single FEMA Building Type. 

Some judgment will be necessary to assign the most relevant FEMA 

Building Type to each building, with the focus on the seismic force-resisting 

system and construction material. If the building is particularly unique such 

that none of the 17 FEMA Building Types is appropriate, the FEMA P-154 

procedure cannot be used to determine if the building is potentially 

hazardous. Examples of this include steel plate shear wall buildings, rammed 

FEMA P-154 3: Completing the Level 1 Data Collection Form 3-33 
earth structures, and certain types of Native American construction. A 

building that cannot be assigned a FEMA Building Type will require a 

special investigation to determine whether it is seismically hazardous. 

3.14.1 FEMA Building Types Considered and Basic Scores 

Following are the 17 FEMA Building Types considered in the FEMA P-154 

RVS procedure. Alpha-numeric reference codes used on the Data Collection 

Form are shown in parentheses. 

	 Light wood frame single- or multiple-family dwellings of one or more 

stories in height (W1) 

	 Light wood frame multi-unit, multi-story residential buildings with plan 

areas on each floor of greater than 3,000 square feet (W1A) 

	 Wood frame commercial and industrial buildings with a floor area larger 

than 5,000 square feet (W2) 

	 Steel moment-resisting frame buildings (S1) 

	 Braced steel frame buildings (S2) 

	 Light metal buildings (S3) 

	 Steel frame buildings with cast-in-place concrete shear walls (S4) 

	 Steel frame buildings with unreinforced masonry infill walls (S5) 

	 Concrete moment-resisting frame buildings (C1) 

	 Concrete shear-wall buildings (C2) 

	 Concrete frame buildings with unreinforced masonry infill walls (C3) 

	 Tilt-up buildings (PC1) 

	 Precast concrete frame buildings (PC2) 

	 Reinforced masonry buildings with flexible floor and roof diaphragms 

(RM1) 

	 Reinforced masonry buildings with rigid floor and roof diaphragms 

(RM2) 

	 Unreinforced masonry bearing-wall buildings (URM) 

	 Manufactured housing (MH) 

Using available damage and loss estimation functions, a Basic Score has 

been computed for each FEMA Building Type that reflects the estimated 

likelihood that building collapse will occur if the building is subjected to 

risk-targeted maximum considered earthquake (MCER) ground motions. For 

3-34	 3: Completing the Level 1 Data Collection Form FEMA P-154 
more information about the development of the Basic Scores, see FEMA P155 Third Edition (FEMA, 2015). 

The Basic Scores are provided on the Level 1 Data Collection Form. The 

scores vary by seismicity region. As such, the Very High, High, Moderately 

High, Moderate, and Low seismicity forms each have a unique set of basic 

scores. Figure 3-39 shows Basic Scores as they appear on the High 

seismicity Data Collection Form. 

Figure 3-39	 FEMA Building Type and Basic Score portion of the Level 1 

Data Collection Form for High seismicity. 

In Very High, High, Moderately High, and Moderate seismicity regions, the 

Basic Scores apply to buildings built after the initial adoption and 

enforcement of seismic codes, but before the relatively recent significant 

improvement of codes (that is, before the applicable benchmark year, as 

determined during the pre-planning phase). In Low seismicity regions, they 

apply to all buildings except those designed and constructed after the 

applicable benchmark year, as determined during the pre-planning phase. 

The identification of those years in which seismic codes were initially 

adopted and later significantly improved is a key issue to be addressed in the 

planning stage (as described in Chapter 2). As described later in this chapter, 

the Level 1 Data Collection Form includes Score Modifiers that provide a 

means for modifying the Basic Score as a function of design and construction 

date. 

Brief summaries of the physical characteristics and expected earthquake 

performance of each of the 17 FEMA Building Types, along with a 

photograph of a sample exterior view, and the Basic Scores for regions of 

Very High (VH), High (H), Moderately High (MH), Moderate (M), and Low 

(L) seismicity are provided in Table 3-1. 

FEMA P-154 3: Completing the Level 1 Data Collection Form 3-35 
Table 3-1 FEMA Building Type Descriptions, Basic Scores, and Performance in Past earthquakes 

FEMA Building Type Photograph Basic Score 

Characteristics and 

Performance 

 Wood stud walls are typically 

constructed of 2-inch by 4-

inch (2-inch by 6-inch for 

multiple stories) vertical wood 

members set about 16 inches 

apart. 

 Most common exterior finish 

materials are wood siding, 

metal siding, or stucco. 

 Buildings of this type W1 (VH) = 2.1 performed very well in past 

Light wood frame (H) = 3.6 earthquakes due to inherent 

single- or multiplefamily dwellings of one 

or more stories in 

(MH) = 4.1 

(M) = 5.1 

qualities of the structural 

system and because they are 

lightweight and low rise. 

height (L) = 6.2  Earthquake-induced cracks in 

the plaster and stucco (if any) 

may appear, but are classified 

as non-structural damage. 

 The most common type of 

structural damage in older 

buildings results from a lack of 

connection between the 

superstructure and the 

foundation, and inadequate 

chimney support. 

 These are typically residential 

buildings, but some may have 

commercial space at the 

ground floor. W1A 

Light wood frame (VH) = 1.9  Large openings are common at 

the ground floor for parking. 

multi-unit, multi-story (H) = 3.2 These are often termed 

residential buildings (MH) = 3.7 tuckunder buildings. 

with plan areas on (M) = 4.5  W1A buildings with large 

each floor of greater 

than 3,000 square feet 

(L) = 5.9 openings at the ground floor 

for parking or commercial 

purposes have performed 

poorly in past earthquakes 

because the large openings 

create a soft story. 

3-36 3: Completing the Level 1 Data Collection Form FEMA P-154 
 

Table 3-1 FEMA Building Type Descriptions, Basic Scores, and Performance in Past earthquakes 

(continued) 

FEMA Building 

Type Photograph Basic Score Characteristics and Performance 

W2 

 These are typically commercial 

buildings or industrial structures 

usually of one to three stories, 

Wood frame (VH) = 1.8 and, rarely, as tall as six stories. 

commercial and (H) = 2.9  For commercial and industrial 

industrial 

buildings with a 

floor area larger 

(MH) = 3.2 

(M) = 3.8 

buildings with less than 5,000 

square feet, the W2 type can be 

assigned as well. than 5,000 square 

feet 

(L) = 5.7 

 Typical steel moment-resisting 

frame structures have similar bay 

widths in both the transverse and 

longitudinal directions, around 

20-30 feet. 

 The floor diaphragms are usually 

concrete, sometimes over steel 

decking. This structural type is 

used for commercial, institutional, 

and public buildings. (VH) = 1.5  The 1994 Northridge and 1995 S1 (H) = 2.1 Kobe earthquakes showed that 

Steel moment- (MH) = 2.3 the welds in steel moment frame 

resisting frame (M) = 2.7 buildings were vulnerable to 

(L) = 3.8 severe damage. The damage took 

the form of broken connections 

between the beams and columns. 

 The relatively low stiffness of the 

frame can lead to substantial 

nonstructural damage. 

 This building could also have a 

concrete seismic force-resisting 

system. See Appendix D for 

advice on how to identify FEMA 

Building Type. 

FEMA P-154 3: Completing the Level 1 Data Collection Form 3-37 
Table 3-1 FEMA Building Type Descriptions, Basic Scores, and Performance in Past earthquakes 

(continued) 

FEMA Building 

Type Photograph Basic Score Characteristics and Performance 

 These buildings are braced with 

diagonal members, which usually 

cannot be detected from the 

building exterior. 

 Braced frames are sometimes used 

for long and narrow buildings 

because of their stiffness. 

 From the building exterior, it is 

difficult to tell the difference 

between steel moment frames, steel 

braced frames, and steel frames with 

interior concrete shear walls. 

(VH) = 1.4  In recent earthquakes, braced 

S2 

Braced steel 

(H) = 0 2 

(MH) = 2.2 

frames were found to have damage 

to brace connections and, in some 

frame (M) = 2.6 cases to the braces, especially at the 

(L) = 3.9 lower levels. 

Close-up photo of building above 

 The structural system usually consists 

of moment frames in the transverse 

direction and braced frames in the 

longitudinal direction, with 

corrugated sheet-metal siding. In 

some regions, light metal buildings 

may have partial height masonry 

(VH) = 1.6 walls. 

S3 (H) = 2.6  The interiors of most of these 

buildings do not have interior 

Light metal (MH) = 2.9 finishes and their structural skeleton 

building (M) = 3.5 can be seen easily. 

(L) = 4.4  Insufficient capacity of tension 

braces can lead to their elongation 

and consequent building damage 

during earthquakes. 

 Inadequate connection to a slab 

foundation can allow the building 

columns to slide on the slab. 

 Loss of the cladding can occur. 

3-38 3: Completing the Level 1 Data Collection Form FEMA P-154 
Table 3-1 FEMA Building Type Descriptions, Basic Scores, and Performance in Past earthquakes 

(continued) 

FEMA Building 

Type Photograph Basic Score Characteristics and Performance 

 Lateral loads are resisted by shear 

walls, which usually surround 

elevator cores and stairwells, and 

are covered by finish materials. 

 An interior investigation will 

permit a wall thickness check. A 

thickness in excess of six inches 

usually indicates a concrete shear 

S4 (VH) = 1.4 wall. 

Steel frames with (H) = 2.0  Shear cracking and distress can 

cast-in-place (MH) = 2.2 occur around openings in 

concrete shear (M) = 2.5 concrete shear walls during 

walls (L) = 4.1 earthquakes. 

 Wall construction joints can be 

weak planes, resulting in wall 

shear failure below expected 

capacity. 

 This building could also have a 

concrete frame. See Appendix D 

for advice on how to identify 

FEMA Building Type. 

 Steel columns are relatively thin 

and may be hidden in walls. 

 Usually masonry is exposed on 

exterior with narrow piers (less 

than 4 ft wide) between windows. 

S5 (VH) = 1.2  Portions of solid walls will align 

vertically. 

Steel frames with (H) = 1.7  Infill walls are usually two to three 

unreinforced (MH) = 2.0 wythes thick. 

masonry infill 

walls 

(M) = 2.7 

(L) = 4.5 

 Veneer masonry around columns 

or beams is usually poorly 

anchored and detaches easily. 

 This building could also have a 

concrete frame. See Appendix D 

for advice on how to identify 

FEMA Building Type. 

FEMA P-154 3: Completing the Level 1 Data Collection Form 3-39 
 

Table 3-1 FEMA Building Type Descriptions, Basic Scores, and Performance in Past earthquakes 

(continued) 

FEMA Building 

Type Photograph Basic Score Characteristics and Performance 

 All exposed concrete frames are 

reinforced concrete (not steel 

frames encased in concrete). 

 A fundamental factor governing 

the performance of concrete 

moment-resisting frames is the 

(VH) = 1.0 level of ductile detailing. 

C1 

Concrete 

moment-resisting 

frames 

(H) = 1.5 

(MH) = 1.7 

(M) = 2.1 

 Large spacing of ties in columns 

can lead to a lack of concrete 

confinement and shear failure. 

 Lack of continuous beam 

(L) = 3.3 reinforcement can result in hinge 

formation during load reversal. 

 The relatively low stiffness of the 

frame can lead to substantial 

nonstructural damage. 

 Column damage due to pounding 

with adjacent buildings can occur. 

 Concrete shear wall buildings are 

usually cast-in-place, and show 

typical signs of cast-in-place 

concrete. 

 Shear wall thickness often ranges 

(VH) = 1.2 from 6 to 18 inches. 

C2 

Concrete shear 

wall buildings 

(H) = 2.0 

(MH) = 2.1 

(M) = 2.5 

 These buildings generally perform 

better than concrete frame 

buildings. 

 They are heavier than steel-frame (L) = 4.2 buildings but more rigid due to 

the shear walls. 

 Damage commonly observed in 

taller buildings is caused by 

vertical discontinuities, pounding, 

and irregular configuration. 

3-40 3: Completing the Level 1 Data Collection Form FEMA P-154 
 

Table 3-1 FEMA Building Type Descriptions, Basic Scores, and Performance in Past earthquakes 

(continued) 

FEMA Building 

Type Photograph Basic Score Characteristics and Performance 

 Concrete columns and beams 

may be full wall thickness and 

may be exposed for viewing on 

the sides and rear of the building. 

 Usually masonry is exposed on 

the exterior with narrow piers (less 

than four feet wide) between 

C3 

Concrete frames 

with unreinforced 

masonry infill 

walls 

(VH) = 0.9 

(H) = 1.2 

(MH) = 1.4 

(M) = 2.0 

(L) = 3.5 

windows. 

 Portions of solid walls will align 

vertically. 

 This type of construction was 

generally built before 1940 in high 

seismicity regions but continues to 

be built in other regions. 

 Infill walls tend to buckle and fall 

out-of-plane when subjected to 

strong lateral out-of-plane forces. 

 Veneer masonry around columns 

or beams is usually poorly 

anchored and detaches easily. 

 Tilt-ups are typically one or two 

stories high and are basically 

rectangular in plan. 

 Exterior walls were traditionally 

formed and cast on the ground 

adjacent to their final position, 

and then tilted up and attached to 

the floor slab. 

 The roof can be a plywood 

diaphragm carried on wood 

purlins and glulam beams or a 

light steel deck and joist system, (VH) = 1.1 supported in the interior of the 

PC1 

Tilt-up buildings 

(H) = 1.6 

(MH) = 1.8 

(M) = 2.1 

building on steel pipe columns. 

 Weak diaphragm-to-wall 

anchorage results in the wall 

panels falling and the collapse of (L) = 3.8 the supported diaphragm (or 

roof). 

Partial roof collapse due to failed diaphragm-towall connection 

FEMA P-154 3: Completing the Level 1 Data Collection Form 3-41 
Table 3-1 FEMA Building Type Descriptions, Basic Scores, and Performance in Past earthquakes 

(continued) 

FEMA Building 

Type Photograph Basic Score Characteristics and Performance 

Building under construction 

 Precast concrete frames are, in 

essence, post and beam 

construction in concrete. 

 Structures often employ concrete 

or reinforced masonry (brick or 

block) shear walls. 

 The performance varies widely 

and is sometimes poor. In 

addition to damage to shear walls 

similar to C2 buildings, PC2 

buildings have additional issues as 

follows. 

 Poorly designed connections 

between prefabricated elements 

can fail. 

 Loss of vertical support can occur 

due to inadequate bearing area 

and insufficient connection 

between floor elements and 

columns. 

(VH) = 1.0  Corrosion of metal connectors 

PC2 

(H) = 1.4 

(MH) = 1.5 

between prefabricated elements 

can occur. 

Precast concrete 

frame buildings (M) = 1.9 

(L) = 3.3 

Detail of the precast components 

Building nearing completion 

3-42 3: Completing the Level 1 Data Collection Form FEMA P-154 
Table 3-1 FEMA Building Type Descriptions, Basic Scores, and Performance in Past earthquakes 

(continued) 

FEMA Building 

Type Photograph Basic Score Characteristics and Performance 

 Walls are either brick or concrete 

block. 

 Wall thickness is usually 8 inches 

to 12 inches. 

 Interior inspection is required to 

determine if diaphragms are 

flexible or rigid. 

 The most common flexible floor 

and roof diaphragm systems are 

wood or light steel. 

 These buildings can perform well 

in moderate earthquakes if they 

are adequately reinforced and 

grouted, with sufficient diaphragm 

anchorage. 

 Poor construction practice can 

result in ungrouted and 

unreinforced walls, which will fail 

easily. 

(VH) = 1.1 

RM1 (H) = 1.7 

Reinforced (MH) = 1.8

masonry buildings 

with flexible 

diaphragms Truss-joists support plywood and light-weight 

concrete slab 

(M) = 2.1 

(L) = 3.7 

Detail showing reinforced masonry 

FEMA P-154 3: Completing the Level 1 Data Collection Form 3-43 
 

Table 3-1 FEMA Building Type Descriptions, Basic Scores, and Performance in Past earthquakes 

(continued) 

FEMA Building 

Type Photograph Basic Score Characteristics and Performance 

 Walls are either brick or concrete 

block. 

 Wall thickness is usually 8 inches 

to 12 inches. 

 Interior inspection is required to 

determine if diaphragms are 

flexible or rigid. 

RM2 

Reinforced 

masonry buildings 

with rigid 

diaphragms 

(VH) = 1.1 

(H) = 1.7 

(MH) = 1.8 

(M) = 2.1 

(L) = 3.7 

 The most common rigid floor and 

roof diaphragm systems are 

precast concrete or concrete over 

metal deck. 

 These buildings can perform well 

in moderate earthquakes if they 

are adequately reinforced and 

grouted, with sufficient diaphragm 

anchorage. 

 Poor construction practice can 

result in ungrouted and 

unreinforced walls, which will fail 

easily. 

 These buildings often used weak 

lime mortar to bond the masonry 

units together. 

 Arches are often an architectural 

characteristic of older brick 

bearing wall buildings. (VH) = 0.9  Other methods of spanning are 

URM (H) = 1.0 also used, including steel and 

Unreinforced (MH) = 1.2 stone lintels. 

masonry buildings (M) = 1.7  Unreinforced masonry usually 

(L) = 3.2 shows header bricks in the wall 

surface. 

 The performance of this type of 

construction is poor due to lack of 

anchorage of walls to floors and 

roof, soft mortar, and narrow piers 

between window openings. 

3-44 3: Completing the Level 1 Data Collection Form FEMA P-154 
 

Table 3-1 FEMA Building Type Descriptions, Basic Scores, and Performance in Past earthquakes 

(continued) 

FEMA Building 

Type Photograph Basic Score Characteristics and Performance 

 These buildings can be mobile 

homes or modular buildings, such 

as those used for portable 

classrooms. 

 The buildings are mobile, raised 

up off the ground, not anchored 

to the ground, and may or may 

not have an earthquake resistant 

bracing system (ERBS). 

 Manufactured homes are typically 

one story and come in different 

sizes. A single-wide unit can be 

(VH) = 1.4 up to 18 feet in width. A doubleMH 

Manufactured 

housing 

(H) = 1.8 

(MH) = 2.2 

(M) = 2.9 

wide unit is 20 feet or more in 

width. 

 Floors and roofs are usually 

constructed with plywood or (L) = 4.6 oriented strand board, and the 

outside surfaces are covered with 

sheet metal. 

 The primary source of damage is 

due to the lack of a permanent 

foundation connection or an 

earthquake-resistant bracing 

system (ERBS). In moderate 

shaking, the building can fall off its 

supports, and jack stands can 

penetrate the floor. Connecting 

utility lines can be severed, and 

escaping gas can cause fires. 

3.14.2 Identifying the FEMA Building Type 

At the heart of the RVS procedure is the task of identifying the FEMA 

Building Type from the street. Once the FEMA Building Type is identified, 

the screener finds the appropriate alpha-numeric code on the Level 1 Data 

Collection Form and circles the Basic Score immediately beneath it. 

Each FEMA Building Type corresponds to a construction material and a type 

of seismic force-resisting system. Ideally, the FEMA Building Type for each 

building to be screened would be identified prior to field work through the 

review and interpretation of construction documents for each building (i.e., 

during the planning stage, as discussed in Chapter 2). More commonly, the 

screener must determine the FEMA Building Type in the field. When 

possible, the screener should enter the building to verify the FEMA Building 

Type selected. See Section 3.14.3 for additional information on interior 

inspections. 

FEMA P-154 3: Completing the Level 1 Data Collection Form 3-45 
 

Appendix D provides additional guidance for identifying FEMA Building 

Types from a sidewalk survey. Additional background information on the 

physical characteristics and earthquake performance of these FEMA 

Building Types, not essential to the RVS procedure, is provided in Appendix 

E. 

Determining the FEMA Building Type in the field is often difficult. A 

careful review of Table 3-1 and the information provided in Appendices D 

and E, along with training by knowledgeable building design professionals, 

should assist the screener in the determination of the FEMA Building Type. 

The following process is recommended: 

	 Step 1: Identify the gravity system. Is the building primarily wood, steel, 

concrete, or masonry? Screen out materials that the building obviously is 

not to arrive at one or two materials. 

	 Step 2: Identify the type of seismic force-resisting system. Is the seismic 

force-resisting system a frame, braced frame, or bearing wall? 

	 Step 3: Based on the material type from Step 1 and the type of seismic 

force-resisting system from Step 2, eliminate as many FEMA Building 

Types as possible. The screener should be able to narrow down the 

possible FEMA Building Types to between one and three. 

Of these steps, identifying the seismic force-resisting system (Step 2) is 

perhaps the most challenging. A frame structure (for example, S1, S3, S4, 

C1, or PC2) is made up of beams and columns throughout the entire 

structure, resisting both vertical and lateral loads. A braced frame structure 

(S2) has beams and columns that resist vertical loads and diagonal braces 

that resist lateral loads. A bearing wall structure (for example, PC1 and 

URM) uses vertical-load-bearing walls, which are more or less solid, to resist 

the vertical and lateral loads. 

When a building has large openings on all sides, as illustrated in Figure 3-40, 

it is probably a frame structure as opposed to a bearing wall structure. A 

common characteristic of a frame structure is the rectangular grid patterns of 

the façade, indicating the location of the columns and girders behind the 

finish material. This is particularly revealing when windows occupy the 

entire opening in the frame, and no infill wall is used. A newer multistory 

commercial building should be assumed to be a frame structure, even though 

there may exist interior shear walls carrying the lateral loads (this would be a 

frame structure with shear walls, such as a S4 or C2 building). 

3-46	 3: Completing the Level 1 Data Collection Form FEMA P-154 
Figure 3-40	 Typical frame structure. Features include large window spans, 

window openings on many sides, and clearly visible columnbeam grid pattern. 

Bearing-wall systems (also called box systems), as illustrated in Figure 3-41, 

carry vertical and lateral loads with walls rather than solely with columns. 

Structural floor members such as slabs, joists, and beams, are supported by 

load-bearing walls. A bearing wall system is thus characterized by more or 

less solid walls and, as a rule of thumb, a load-bearing wall will have more 

solid areas than openings. It also will have no wide openings, unless a 

structural lintel is used. 

Figure 3-41	 Typical bearing wall structure. Features include small window 

span, at least two mostly solid walls, and thick load-bearing 

walls. 

Some bearing-wall structures incorporate structural columns, or are partly 

frame structures. This is especially popular in multistory commercial 

buildings in urban lots where girders and columns are used in the ground 

floor of a bearing wall structure to provide larger openings for retail spaces. 

FEMA P-154 3: Completing the Level 1 Data Collection Form 3-47 
 

Another example is where the loads are carried by both interior columns and 

a perimeter wall. Both of these examples should be considered as bearing 

wall structures, because lateral loads are resisted by the bearing walls. 

Bearing wall structures sometimes utilize only two walls for load bearing. 

The other walls are non-load-bearing and thus may have large openings. 

Therefore, the openness of the front elevation should not be used to 

determine the structure type. The screener should also look at the side and 

rear façades. If at least two of the four exterior walls appear to be solid then 

it is likely that it is a bearing wall structure. 

Window openings in older frame structures can sometimes be misleading. 

Since wide windows were excessively costly and fragile until relatively 

recently, several narrow windows separated by thin mullions are often seen 

in older buildings. These thin mullions are usually not load bearing. When 

the narrow windows are close together, they constitute a large opening 

typical of a frame structure, or a window in a bearing wall structure with 

steel lintels. 

Whereas open façades on all sides clearly indicate a frame structure, solid 

walls may be indicative of a bearing wall structure or a frame structure with 

solid infill walls. Bearing walls are usually much thicker than infill walls, 

and increase in thickness in the lower stories of multi-story buildings. This 

increase in wall thickness can be detected by comparing the wall thickness at 

windows on different floors. Thus, solid walls can be identified as bearing or 

non-bearing walls according to their thickness, if the structural material is 

known. 

Unreinforced masonry and tilt-up buildings are usually bearing-wall type, 

steel buildings and pre-cast concrete buildings are usually frame type, 

concrete buildings may be of either type. 

There will be some buildings for which the FEMA Building Type cannot be 

identified because of their façade treatment. In this case, the screener should 

eliminate those FEMA Building Types that are not possible and assume that 

any of the others are possible. If two or three possibilities remain, the Basic 

Scores for all the possible FEMA Building Types would be circled on the 

Data Collection Form. If more than three possibilities remain, the screener 

circles “Do Not Know” and does not calculate a score for the building. 

3.14.3 Interior Inspections 

Ideally, whenever possible, the screener should seek access to the interior of 

3-48 3: Completing the Level 1 Data Collection Form FEMA P-154 
 

 

the building to identify, or verify, the FEMA Building Type. In the case of 

reinforced masonry buildings, entry is particularly important so that the 

screener can distinguish between RM1 buildings, which have flexible floor 

and roof diaphragms, and RM2 buildings, which have rigid floor diaphragms 

and either flexible or rigid roof diaphragms. Flexible diaphragms are 

typically wood framed. Whether the floor is concrete or wood can usually be 

determined from the sound of footfall or tapping with a hard object on the 

floor. The screener should look in storage or mechanical rooms where 

ceilings are not present to view the underside of the floor construction. 

The RVS procedure does not require the removal of finish materials that are 

otherwise permanently affixed to the structure. There are a number of places 

within a building where it is possible to see the exposed structure. The 

following are some ways to determine the structure type. 

	 If the building has a basement that is not occupied, the first-floor framing 

may be exposed. The framing will usually be representative of the floor 

framing throughout the building. 

	 If the structural system is a steel or concrete frame, the columns and 

beams will often be exposed in the basement. The perimeter basement 

walls will likely be concrete, but this does not mean that they are 

concrete all the way to the roof. 

	 High rise and mid-rise structures usually have one or more levels of 

parking below the building. When fireproofed steel columns and girders 

are seen, the screener can be fairly certain that the structure is a steel 

building (S1, S2, or S4; see Figure 3-42). 

Figure 3-42 Interior view showing fire-proofed columns and beams, which 

indicate a steel building (S1, S2, or S4). 

FEMA P-154 3: Completing the Level 1 Data Collection Form 3-49 
	 If the columns and beams are constructed of concrete, the structure is 

most likely a concrete moment-frame building (C1, see Figure 3-43). 

However, this is not guaranteed as some buildings will use steel framing 

above the ground floor. To ascertain the FEMA Building Type, the 

screener will need to look at the columns above the first floor. 

Figure 3-43 Interior view showing concrete columns and girders with no 

identifiable shear walls, which indicates a concrete moment 

frame (C1). 

	 If there is no basement, the inspection of the mechanical and electrical 

equipment rooms may enable identification of the framing for the floor 

above. 

	 If suspended ceilings are used, one of the ceiling tiles can be lifted and 

simply pushed aside. In many cases, the floor framing will then be 

exposed. Caution should be used in identifying the framing materials, 

because prior to about 1960, steel beams were encased in concrete to 

provide fireproofing. If steel framing is seen with what appears to be 

concrete beams, the latter are most likely steel beams encased in 

concrete. 

	 If plastered ceilings are observed above suspended ceilings, the screener 

will not be able to identify the framing materials; however, plaster is not 

generally used for ceilings in post-1960 buildings. 

	 At exterior walls, if the structural system is a frame system, there will be 

regularly spaced locations where the wall is thicker and projects into the 

interior space of the building farther than the adjacent wall areas. These 

are the building columns. If the exterior walls between the columns are 

constructed of brick masonry and the thickness of the wall is 9 inches or 

3-50	 3: Completing the Level 1 Data Collection Form FEMA P-154 
 

more for each story, the structure type is either steel frame with 

unreinforced masonry infill (S5) or concrete frame with unreinforced 

masonry infill (C3). However, if the exterior walls are constructed of 

thick brick masonry and there is no discernible frame system, the FEMA 

Building Type may be unreinforced masonry (URM). 

	 Pre-1930 brick masonry buildings that are six stories or less in height and 

that have wood-floor framing supported on masonry ledges in pockets 

formed in the wall are unreinforced masonry bearing-wall buildings 

(URM). 

3.14.4	 Screening Buildings with More Than One FEMA Building 

Type 

In some cases, the screener may observe buildings having more than one 

FEMA Building Type. Examples might include a wood frame building atop 

a precast concrete parking garage, or a building with reinforced concrete 

shear walls in one direction and a reinforced moment-resisting frame in the 

other. 

A building that has one FEMA Building Type in one direction and another 

FEMA Building Type in the other direction should be evaluated for both 

types, and the lowest Final Score should govern. 

A building with one FEMA Building Type above another should be 

evaluated for both types. For example, in the case of a three-story wood 

frame residential structure over a one-story concrete moment frame podium, 

one score can be calculated for the three-story W1A and another score can be 

calculated for the one-story C1. Use the lowest score as the Final Score. 

Other, more complicated scenarios also exist. If in doubt about how to 

screen the building, the screener should note the complication in the 

Comments section of the form and the Supervising Engineer should 

determine whether the building requires a Detailed Structural Evaluation. 

3.14.5	 Screening Buildings with Additions 

Some buildings are modified with additions after the original construction. 

There are a number of aspects of building additions that need to be 

considered when evaluating the significance of the addition and its effect on 

the seismic resistance of the structure as a whole. The additions can be 

horizontal, adding to the plan area of the building (as shown in Figure 3-44), 

or vertical, adding stories to the building (as shown in Figure 3-45). 

FEMA P-154 3: Completing the Level 1 Data Collection Form 3-51 
Figure 3-44 Illustration of a horizontal addition. 

Figure 3-45 Illustration of a vertical addition. 

An important characteristic of an addition is that it is structurally connected 

to the original building. Where structural separation gaps exist between 

buildings or portions of buildings, the structures on either side of the 

separation gap should be treated as separate buildings. Additions are 

common for many types of buildings, such as hospitals or schools that 

change over time. 

Separation joints can be present to separate a horizontal addition from the 

original building or to separate portions of a building constructed at the same 

time. These separation joints occur over the entire height of the building and 

across the width of the building. On the exterior, these joints typically are 

either filled with material that is compressible and water tight or covered 

with a joint cover that allows the two parts of the building to move 

independently. Some building additions, such as vertical additions, are 

integrally connected to the original structure while others are constructed as 

3-52 3: Completing the Level 1 Data Collection Form FEMA P-154 
essentially a separate structure. Single story penthouses need not be 

considered as a vertical addition if not used as normally habitable space. 

Additions are often identified by observing obvious differences in the 

architectural style or exterior cladding materials (non-matching brick color 

and texture) of different parts of the building relative to each other. An 

addition may be constructed using framing and materials that are similar to 

those used for the original building, or the framing of the addition may be 

different than the original building. Differences in construction materials 

used typically indicate that the lateral stiffness of the addition and original 

building are different, and therefore the two parts will respond differently to 

earthquake forces. The differences between sections may also be indicated 

where there are differences in floor levels between adjacent portions of a 

building or where the structural framing material used for parts of the 

building are different. 

Where complex conditions involving additions or buildings with multiple 

independent sections are encountered for the building being screened, the 

preferred approach would be to recommend that the building receive a 

Detailed Structural Evaluation. If the screener is unable to determine 

whether a building is an addition or a separate structure, the buildings should 

be noted as requiring a Detailed Structural Evaluation. 

For horizontal additions, a checklist is presented in Table 3-2 for use in 

assessing whether to screen a building as a single building or multiple 

buildings based on the characteristics of the additions. 

3.15 Score Modifiers 

Once the screener has completed the top half of the Level 1 Data Collection 

Form and identified the FEMA Building Type, he or she is ready to calculate 

the building’s RVS score using the scoring matrix. The scoring matrix, 

shown in Figure 3-46, provides the Basic Score and Score Modifiers related 

to building characteristics or performance attributes. Building characteristics 

that positively affect the performance of the building have positive Score 

Modifiers and increase the score. Building characteristics that negatively 

affect the performance of the building have negative Score Modifiers and 

decrease the score. 

The severity of the impact of the performance attribute on structural 

performance varies with the FEMA Building Type; thus the assigned Score 

Modifiers depend on FEMA Building Type. If a performance attribute does 

FEMA P-154 3: Completing the Level 1 Data Collection Form 3-53 
3-54 3: Completing the Level 1 Data Collection Form FEMA P-154 

Table 3-2 Level 1 Reference Guide for Reviewing Buildings with Horizontal 

Additions 

Building Addition Screening Criteria Response Screening Guidance 

Criterion 1: Does the building have 

visible and aligned joints over the entire 

height of two exterior walls and across 

the roof? 

Yes Determine scores for each 

separate building defined by 

the joints and consider the 

potential for pounding using 

the adjacency guidelines in 

Section 3.9. 

No See Criterion 2 

Criterion 2: Does the building have any 

of the following characteristics: 

a) abrupt and noticeable differences in 

architectural style that occur on two 

sides of the building over the entire 

height of the exterior walls? 

b) visible differences in structural 

framing between distinct portions of the 

building? 

c) differences in floor elevation 

between portions of the building? 

Yes Screen as separate buildings 

defined by the differences 

noted in Criterion 2. 

Determine score for each 

portion and record the lower 

score. 

No Screen as a single building. 

not apply to a given FEMA Building Type, the Score Modifier is indicated 

with “N/A,” which indicates that this Score Modifier is not applicable. Score 

Modifiers associated with each building characteristic are indicated in the 

scoring matrix on the Level 1 Data Collection Form. 

Figure 3-46 Scoring Matrix portion of the Level 1 Data Collection Form for High seismicity. 

The screener circles Score Modifiers for the building in the appropriate 

column (i.e., under the reference code for the identified FEMA Building 

Type). Following are instructions for when to apply each Score Modifier. 

3.15.1 Vertical Irregularity 

If one or more severe vertical irregularities have been identified in the 

Irregularities section of the form (as per Section 3.10.1), the Severe Vertical 

Irregularity Score Modifier should be circled. If one or more moderate 

vertical irregularities have been identified, and no severe vertical 
irregularities exist, the Moderate Vertical Irregularity Score Modifier should 

be circled. 

3.15.2 Plan Irregularity 

If one or more plan irregularities have been identified in the Irregularities 

section of the form (as per Section 3.10.2), the Plan Irregularity Score 

Modifier should be circled. 

3.15.3 Pre-Code 

This Score Modifier is applicable if the building being screened was 

designed and constructed prior to the initial adoption and enforcement of 

seismic codes applicable for that FEMA Building Type. The year(s) in 

which seismic codes were initially adopted and enforced for the various 

FEMA Building Types should have been identified during the pre-planning 

stage (as recommended in Chapter 2) and added to the Quick Reference 

Guide in Appendix B. Using the Quick Reference Guide, the screener 

compares the year built (or code year, if known) to the year seismic codes 

were initially adopted and enforced for that FEMA Building Type. If the 

year built is earlier than the year seismic codes were adopted, the screener 

should apply the Pre-Code Score Modifier. Because of the method used to 

calculate the Basic Scores, this Score Modifier does not apply to buildings in 

a Low seismicity region. 

3.15.4 Post-Benchmark 

This Score Modifier is applicable if the building being screened was 

designed and constructed after significantly improved seismic codes 

applicable for that FEMA Building Type were adopted and enforced by the 

local jurisdiction. The year in which such improvements were adopted is 

termed the “benchmark” year. Benchmark year(s) for the various FEMA 

Building Types should have been identified during the pre-planning stage (as 

recommended in Chapter 2) and added to the Quick Reference Guide. Using 

the Quick Reference Guide, the screener should compare the year built (or 

code year, if known) to the benchmark year. If the year built matches or is 

later than the benchmark year, the screener applies the Post-Benchmark 

Score Modifier. 

3.15.5 Soil Type 

Score Modifiers are provided for Soil Type A or B and for Soil Type E. If 

Soil Type A or B has been identified in the Soil Type portion of the form, the 

screener circles the Soil Type A or B Score Modifier. If Soil Type E has 

been identified and there are three or fewer stories, the screener circles the 

FEMA P-154 3: Completing the Level 1 Data Collection Form 3-55 
 

“Soil Type E (1-3 stories)” Score Modifier. If Soil Type E has been 

identified, and there are more than three stories, the screener circles the “Soil 

Type E (>3 stories)” Score Modifier. 

Basic Scores were calculated assuming Soil Type CD (the average of Soil 

Type C and Soil Type D). Therefore, no Score Modifier applies when one of 

these soil types occurs. There is no Score Modifier for Soil Type F because 

buildings on Soil Type F cannot be screened effectively with the RVS 

procedure. If the building is on Soil Type F, the screener should note that 

“Geologic hazards or Soil Type F” are present under the Other Hazards 

portion of the form, which will trigger a Detailed Structural Evaluation for 

the building. 

3.15.6 Minimum Score, SMIN 

Individual Score Modifiers were developed by calculating the probability of 

collapse when varying a single condition. Summing multiple Score 

Modifiers can overestimate the combined effect of multiple conditions and 

may result in a final score less than zero. A negative score implies a 

probability of collapse greater than 100%, which is not possible. 

To address this, a Minimum Score, SMIN, is provided. The Minimum Score 

was developed by considering the worst possible combination of soil type, 

vertical and plan irregularities, and building age, all at once. 

3.16 Determining the Final Level 1 Score 

The Final Level 1 Score, SL1, is determined for a given building by adding 

the circled Score Modifiers for that building to the Basic Score for the 

building. The screener should check the sum of Basic Score and Score 

Modifiers against the Minimum Score, SMIN, and use the Minimum Score if it 

is larger than the sum. 

The result is documented on the bottom line of the scoring matrix next to 

“Final Level 1 Score, SL1.” 

When the screener is uncertain of the FEMA Building Type, an attempt 

should be made to eliminate all unlikely FEMA Building Types. If the 

screener is still left with several choices, the screener calculates SL1 for all the 

remaining FEMA Building Types and chooses the lowest score. This is a 

conservative approach, and has the disadvantage that the assigned score may 

indicate that the building presents a greater risk than it actually does. 

If the screener has little or no confidence about any choice for the structural 

system, as in the case of buildings with uncertain façade treatment (see 

3-56 3: Completing the Level 1 Data Collection Form FEMA P-154 
Section 3.14.2), the screener should circle DNK for “FEMA Building Type,” 

which indicates the screener does not know. In this case, no SL1 score is 

calculated. 

3.17 Documenting the Extent of Review 

The “Extent of Review” portion of the form is provided to document the 

thoroughness of the building screening (see Figure 3-47). The screener notes 

whether he or she had access to all sides of the exterior of the building and 

whether the interior was accessed. There is also a field for the screener to 

note any contacts made in the field. It is valuable to know if the screener was 

able to talk to the building owner or facility manager, particularly if these 

individuals were the source of any information used by the screener in 

completing the form. 

Figure 3-47 Extent of Review portion of the Level 1 Data Collection Form. 

There are also fields to document the resources that were used during prefield planning. The soil type source, geologic hazards source, and whether 

drawings were reviewed should be noted on the form prior to the field visit. 

The information collected in this portion of the form reflects on the accuracy 

of the building’s score. If fewer sources of information were available, it is 

less likely that the FEMA Building Type and the building attributes were 

accurately discerned. This information is expected to be valuable to the 

Program Manager in the analysis of the RVS results and the Supervising 

Engineer during the quality assurance review. 

3.18 Documenting the Level 2 Screening Results 

If the screener has also completed the optional Level 2 portion of the form, 

the results of the Level 2 screening are recorded in this section of the Level 1 

form (see Figure 3-48). 

3.19 Documenting Other Hazards 

Pounding potential, falling hazards from a taller adjacent building, geologic 

hazards, and damage or deterioration to the structural system are all 

conditions that are not considered in the Level 1 score, but can have a 

FEMA P-154 3: Completing the Level 1 Data Collection Form 3-57 
Figure 3-48	 Level 2 screening results portion of the Level 1 Data Collection 

Form. 

negative effect on the performance of the building. If these hazards exist, the 

building may be seismically hazardous even if the Level 1 score is greater 

than the designated cut-off score. Therefore, a Detailed Structural 

Evaluation is required if the screener identifies that any of the following 

hazardous conditions exist (see Figure 3-49). 

	 Pounding potential (unless SL2 > cut-off, if known). This box is checked 

if “Pounding” has been checked in the Adjacency section of the form. If 

a Level 2 screening has been performed, however, and the Final Level 2 

score (which considers pounding) is greater than the cut-off score, then 

the box does not need to be checked. 

	 Falling hazards from a taller adjacent building. This box is checked if 

the “Falling Hazards from Taller Adjacent Building” has been checked in 

the Adjacency section of the form. 

	 Geologic hazards or Soil Type F. If “Yes” has been circled for any 

geologic hazards in the Geologic Hazards section of the Data Collection 

Form or if the building is on Soil Type F, the screener checks this box in 

the Other Hazards section. If all of the geologic hazards are noted as 

“No” or as “DNK,” the screener does not check this box. 

	 Significant damage/deterioration. If the screener has identified any 

significant damage or deterioration during the screening, the “Significant 

damage/deterioration to the structural system” box should be checked. A 

Detailed Structural Evaluation is recommended of any building with 

significant damage or deterioration. 

Figure 3-49 Other Hazards portion of the Level 1 Data Collection Form. 

3-58	 3: Completing the Level 1 Data Collection Form FEMA P-154 
 

 

3.20 Determining the Action Required 

The final step to complete the Level 1 Data Collection Form is to indicate the 

action required. Based on information collected during the screening, the 

screener indicates whether detailed evaluation of the building is required (see 

Figure 3-50). 

Figure 3-50 Action Required portion of the Level 1 Data Collection Form. 

3.20.1 Detailed Structural Evaluation 

The screener indicates whether a Detailed Structural Evaluation is required 

by checking one of four boxes. 

	 Yes, unknown FEMA Building Type or other building. If the screener has 

little or no confidence about any choice for the structural system, or if the 

building does not conform to any of the 17 FEMA Building Types 

considered on the form, the screening cannot be used to conclude that the 

building is not potentially hazardous. Therefore, a Detailed Structural 

Evaluation of the building should be conducted by an experienced design 

professional. In some cases, the Supervising Engineer or another more 

experienced screener may be able to determine the FEMA Building Type 

and complete the screening. 

	 Yes, score less than cut-off. If the building receives a score that is less 

than the cut-off, it may be seismically hazardous and should receive a 

Detailed Structural Evaluation by an experienced design professional. 

	 Yes, other hazards present. If other hazards are present, as indicated in 

the “Other Hazards” section of the form, the building may be seismically 

hazardous and should receive a Detailed Structural Evaluation by an 

experienced design professional. 

	 No. If the building receives a score greater than the cut-off, and no other 

hazards are present, then a Detailed Structural Evaluation is not required. 

FEMA P-154 3: Completing the Level 1 Data Collection Form 3-59 
3.20.2 Detailed Nonstructural Evaluation 

The final step of the screening is to indicate whether a Detailed Nonstructural 

Evaluation is recommended. 

	 Yes, nonstructural hazards identified that should be evaluated. This box 

is checked if a nonstructural hazard has been observed and further 

nonstructural evaluation is recommended to determine whether the 

identified potential falling hazard is actually a threat. For example, a 

detailed evaluation would be necessary to determine whether a building’s 

heavy cladding is properly anchored. If the detailed evaluation reveals 

that it is properly anchored, the heavy cladding is no longer considered a 

falling hazard. 

	 No, nonstructural hazards exist that may require mitigation, but a 

detailed evaluation is not necessary. This box is checked if a 

nonstructural hazard that is a known threat has been observed. For 

example, an unreinforced brick chimney. In these cases, additional 

evaluation is not necessary, although mitigation will be necessary if the 

threat is to be reduced. The jurisdiction may decide to make mitigation 

of these falling hazards mandatory. 

	 No, no nonstructural hazards identified. If no exterior falling hazards 

have been observed during the screening, further nonstructural 

evaluation is not necessary. 

	 DNK. A “do not know” option is also provided if the screener is unable 

to determine whether to recommend a detailed nonstructural evaluation. 

The screener should note the cause of his or her uncertainty in the 

comments box. 

The RVS Authority may later use this information as a basis for notifying the 

owner of potential problems. 

3-60	 3: Completing the Level 1 Data Collection Form FEMA P-154 
Chapter 4 

Completing the Optional 

Level 2 Data Collection Form 

4.1 Introduction 

This chapter provides instructions on how to complete the optional Level 2 

Data Collection Form, shown in Figure 4-1. Level 2 screening should only 

be performed by a civil or structural engineering professional, architect, or 

graduate student with a background in seismic evaluation or design of 

buildings. The statements on the Level 2 form have been designed assuming 

this level of training. 

It is assumed that the Level 1 form has already been completed, either by the 

current screener or previously during an earlier screening. If the Level 1 

form was completed by a different screener, the Level 2 screener should 

repeat the Level 1 screening, or at least verify the information on the Level 1 

form. 

The same seismicity region used for the Level 1 screening applies to the 

Level 2 screening. If the Level 1 screening was performed using the High 

seismicity Level 1 form, the Level 2 screening should be performed using the 

High seismicity Level 2 form. 

Like the Level 1 form, the screener fills out the Level 2 form beginning at the 

top. The screener notes the name of the building, its Level 1 score, and the 

irregularity Score Modifiers used on Level 1. The screener then responds to 

a series of statements about the building, applying Score Modifiers where 

applicable. The Very High, High, Moderately High, Moderate, and Low 

seismicity forms differ in the Score Modifier values and in the pounding 

criteria. The screener calculates a Level 2 score and transfers this score to 

the Level 1 form. 

At the bottom of the Level 2 form is a limited nonstructural screening 

section. The screener replies to a series of statements regarding common 

nonstructural hazards and then makes a judgment about the estimated 

nonstructural seismic performance of the building. 

FEMA P-154 4: Completing the Optional Level 2 Data Collection Form 4-1 
Figure 4-1 Optional Level 2 Data Collection Form. 

4-2 4: Completing the Optional Level 2 Data Collection Form FEMA P-154 
 

4.2 Building Information and Adjusted Baseline Score for 

Level 2 

The screener records the building name and the Level 1 score, SL1, at the top 

of the page. The Level 1 score includes Level 1 Score Modifiers for vertical 

and plan irregularities (VL1 and PL1). These Score Modifiers are removed 

from the score so that the refined Level 2 Irregularity Score Modifiers (VL2 

and PL2) can be used instead. To accomplish this, the screener calculates an 

Adjusted Baseline Score, S’, by subtracting VL1 and PL1 from SL1. This 

Adjusted Baseline Score is the basis for the Level 2 score (see Figure 4-2). 

Figure 4-2	 Portion of the Level 2 form for recording building name and 

calculating adjusted baseline score. 

For the purpose of calculating the Adjusted Baseline Score, the Minimum 

Score on the Level 1 form should not be considered. The Final Level 1 

Score, SL1, shall be taken as the sum of the Basic Score and all applicable 

Level 1 Score Modifiers. 

4.3	 Reviewing the Level 2 Statements and Recording 

Score Modifiers 

The middle section of the Level 2 form is shown in Figure 4-3. The 

statements address vertical and plan irregularities, pounding, and seismic 

retrofit. Some statements are specific to particular FEMA Building Types. 

For each true statement, the screener circles the Score Modifier. For false 

statements, the screener crosses out the Score Modifier. The screener notes 

subtotals for VL2 and PL2. These are the effective Level 2 Score Modifiers for 

vertical and plan irregularities, respectively. The screener also notes the 

subtotal, M, which includes the remainder of the Level 2 Score Modifiers. 

The screener can also record comments in this subtotal area. 

4.3.1 Vertical Irregularities 

The Vertical Irregularity section of the Level 2 form includes statements and 

Score Modifiers for each of the vertical irregularities discussed and shown in 

Chapter 3 and the Vertical Irregularity Reference Guide in Appendix B. The 

sum of Score Modifiers in this section, subject to a cap, is the Level 2 

Vertical Irregularity Score Modifier, VL2, and should be noted in the space 

provided in the subtotals column. The cap for VL2 is defined on the Level 2 

form and varies by seismicity region. A building with a vertical irregularity 

will be more vulnerable if there is a second irregularity present; however, the 

addition of Vertical Irregularity Score Modifiers (each of which represents a 

FEMA P-154 4: Completing the Optional Level 2 Data Collection Form 4-3 
Figure 4-3 Portion of the Level 2 High seismicity Data Collection Form for adjusting the baseline score. 

logarithmic increase in probability of collapse) overestimates the effect of the 

added irregularity. As an approximation of the expected performance of the 

structure, the cap is used. See FEMA P-155 for more information about why 

VL2 is capped. See Chapter 3 for additional discussion, including 

photographs and illustrations of the various types of irregularities. 

The Level 2 vertical irregularities are as follows. 

 Sloping Site 

o	 “W1 building: There is at least a full story grade change from one 

side of the building to the other.” Homes with flexible basement 

walls on all sides, such as those with wood frame construction, on 

steep hills have performed poorly in past earthquakes, such as the 

4-4	 4: Completing the Optional Level 2 Data Collection Form FEMA P-154 
1994 Northridge earthquake. The downslope side of the structure is 

often too weak and flexible to resist earthquake forces. As a result, 

the Score Modifier is large for this irregularity. The Score Modifier 

does not apply when the foundation walls of the partly below-grade 

basement are all constructed of reinforced concrete. 

o	 “Non-W1 building: There is at least a full story grade change from 

one side of the building to the other.” The Score Modifier for this 

statement is smaller than the Score Modifier for the first statement, 

since a sloping site condition has a greater impact on W1 buildings 

than other types of buildings. 

	 Weak and/or Soft Story: Several statements on the form capture 

conditions related to weak or soft story. Each condition is unique; 

however, for certain buildings, more than one of the statements may be 

true. To avoid double counting the irregularity, the screener is directed 

to circle one at most. If more than one applies to the building, the 

screener should select the worst case of the applicable Score Modifiers. 

o	 “W1 building cripple wall: An unbraced cripple wall is visible in 

the crawl space.” A cripple wall is a perimeter stud wall between 

the foundation and the floor joists of the lowest occupied floor. A 

cripple wall is unbraced if it lacks plywood or oriented strand board 

(OSB) structural sheathing. Note that cripple wall damage can be 

costly but tends not to greatly threaten life-safety. However, since 

the scoring in FEMA P-154 is intended to reflect collapse risk 

directly, and life safety only indirectly, this modifier is significant. 

o	 “W1 house over garage: Underneath an occupied story, there is a 

garage opening without a steel moment frame, and there is less than 

8' of wall on the same line (for multiple occupied floors above, use 

16' of wall minimum).” This question is more specific than the 

general description provided in the Vertical Irregularity Reference 

Guide in Appendix B. For Level 2, even if there is an occupied story 

above the garage opening, the modifier need not be triggered if a 

steel moment frame is present at the opening or if there is a shear 

wall (i.e., a stud wall sheathed with plywood or OSB) adjacent to the 

opening. The minimum wall length increases if there are multiple 

occupied floors above the opening. 

o	 “W1A building open front: There are openings at the ground story 

(such as for parking) over at least 50% of the length of the 

building.” This question is more specific than the general 

description on the Vertical Irregularity Reference Guide in Appendix 

FEMA P-154 4: Completing the Optional Level 2 Data Collection Form 4-5 
B. This Score Modifier applies if there are door or window openings 

along more than 50% of the length of the building. This would 

include most buildings with tuckunder parking. 

o	 “Non-W1 building: Length of lateral system at any story is less than 

50% of that at story above or height of any story is more than 2.0 

times the height of the story above.” In the case of shear walls, 

length of the lateral system is the length of shear walls. In the case 

of moment frames, the length of the lateral system is measured in 

terms of number of bays. The exclusion of W1 is intended to avoid 

double-counting of the open-front Score Modifier. An illustration of 

a building that meets this definition is shown in Figure 4-4. 

Figure 4-4	 Illustration of a building with a ground floor story height 

that is twice the height of the stories above. 

o	 “Non-W1 building: Length of lateral system at any story is between 

50% and 75% of that at story above or height of any story is between 

1.3 and 2.0 times the height of the story above.” This statement 

represents a less severe irregularity and has a smaller Score Modifier. 

An illustration of a building that meets this definition is shown in 

Figure 4-5. 

	 Setback 

o	 “Vertical elements of the lateral system at an upper story are 

outboard of those at the story below causing the diaphragm to 

cantilever at the offset.” This condition occurs when the footprint of 

the building at a lower level is smaller than at an upper level. This 

condition is severe because the diaphragm must cantilever back to 

4-6	 4: Completing the Optional Level 2 Data Collection Form FEMA P-154 
Figure 4-5 Illustration of a building with a ground floor story height that is 

1.5 times the height of the stories above. 

the interior of the building, rather than simply span between lateral 

elements. If there are columns under the discontinuous upper story 

walls, they can undergo large overturning forces from the walls 

above and may sustain large drifts from cantilever action of the floor 

diaphragm just above them. 

o	 “Vertical elements of the lateral system at upper stories are inboard 

of those at lower stories.” In this case, the upper story is set back 

from the lower story such that the footprint of the building at the 

lower story is larger than at an upper story. 

o	 “There is an in-plane offset of the lateral elements that is greater 

than the length of the elements.” For example, a braced frame has 

braces at Story X+1 in one bay, but the brace in Story X is in a 

different bay. In the case of a shear wall, the shear wall in Story X+1 

does not overlap with the shear wall in Story X. 

	 Short Column/Pier 

o	 “C1, C2, C3, PC1, PC2, RM1, RM2: At least 20% of columns (or 

piers) along a column line in the lateral system have height/depth 

ratios less than 50% of the nominal height/depth ratio at that level.” 

These columns or piers tend to be stiffer and will undergo higher 

forces and may suffer severe damage before loads are redistributed 

to the other columns or piers. An illustration of a building that meets 

this definition is shown in Figure 4-6. 

FEMA P-154 4: Completing the Optional Level 2 Data Collection Form 4-7 
2 short piers (out of 8 total on this 

line) > 20% 

Figure 4-6 Illustration of a building with short piers. 

o	 “C1, C2, C3, PC1, PC2, RM1, RM2: The column depth (or pier 

width) is less than one half of the depth of the spandrel, or there are 

infill walls or adjacent floors that shorten the column.” The two 

conditions described in this statement are less severe than the 

condition in the first short column/pier statement. An illustration of 

a building that meets this definition is shown in Figure 4-7. 

8'-0" deep spandrels 

(typical) 

Figure 4-7 Illustration of a building with piers that are less than one half as deep 

as the spandrels. 

	 Split Level 

o	 “There is a split level at one of the floor levels or at the roof.” This 

condition creates discontinuity in the floor or roof diaphragm. 

3'-0" deep 

piers (typical) 

4-8	 4: Completing the Optional Level 2 Data Collection Form FEMA P-154 
 

	 Other Irregularity: The following statements allow the screener to apply 

a Score Modifier if a vertical irregularity is observed that is not 

considered by the other irregularity statements. This statement may be 

triggered by an observed mass irregularity, or an unusual condition such 

as a rooftop pool. The screener uses judgment to decide when to use this 

and whether the observed irregularity has a severe or moderate effect on 

the seismic performance of the building. The screener should describe 

the observed irregularity in the comments area. 

o	 “There is another observable severe vertical irregularity that 

obviously affects the building's seismic performance.” 

o	 “There is another observable moderate vertical irregularity that may 

affect the building's seismic performance.” 

4.3.2 Plan Irregularities 

The Plan Irregularity section of the Level 2 form includes statements and 

Score Modifiers for each plan irregularity in the Plan Irregularity Reference 

Guide, Table B-5 in Appendix B. The sum of Score Modifiers in this 

section, subject to a cap, is the Level 2 Plan Irregularity Score Modifier, PL2, 

and should be noted in the space provided in the subtotals column. The cap 

for PL2 is defined on the Level 2 form and is the same value as the Plan 

Irregularity Score Modifier on the Level 1 form, PL1. The cap is used as an 

approximation of the expected performance of the structure. See FEMA P155 for more information about why PL2 is capped. The Level 2 plan 

irregularities are as follows. See Chapter 3 for additional discussion, 

including photographs and illustrations of the various types of irregularities. 

	 “Torsional irregularity: Lateral system does not appear relatively well 

distributed in plan in either or both directions. (Do not include the W1A 

open front irregularity listed above.)” W1A with an open front is 

excluded because the penalty has already been applied in the vertical 

irregularity section and need not be double counted. 

	 “Non-parallel systems: There are one or more major vertical elements of 

the lateral system that are not orthogonal to each other.” This means 

that column lines or shear walls do not meet at right angles. This is 

considered to be only a moderate irregularity. 

	 “Reentrant corner: Both projections from an interior corner exceed 

25% of the overall plan dimension in that direction.” This is considered 

to be only a moderate irregularity. Damage tends to concentrate at the 

reentrant corner, but overall collapse is expected to be less likely than a 

building that is torsionally irregular. An illustration of a building that 

FEMA P-154 4: Completing the Optional Level 2 Data Collection Form 4-9 
 

meets this definition is shown in Figure 4-8. Additional considerations 

should be made for rigid wall, flexible diaphragm buildings where 

smaller reentrant offsets may initiate local building damage or partial 

collapse. An example would be a large rectangular building, as shown in 

Figure 4-9, with a small midspan offset where the tributary loads to the 

wall would generate large overturning and drag/collector forces that may 

not have been adequately provided for in the building’s design. 

288'-0" 

264'-0" 

168'-0" 

projection > 

25% of 

overall plan 

216'-0" 

projection > 

25% of overall dimension plan dimension 

Figure 4-8 Illustration of a building with a reentrant corner. 

	 “Diaphragm opening: There is an opening in the diaphragm with a 

width over 50% of the total diaphragm width at that level.” This is 

considered to be only a moderate irregularity, with less impact than a 

reentrant corner. 

	 “C1, C2 building out-of-plane offset: The exterior beams do not align 

with the columns in plan.” This irregularity has a relatively high Score 

Modifier because it can lead to joint damage and potential collapse when 

the beam-to-column connection is inadequately reinforced. In older 

buildings this is likely to be the case. The impact of the condition varies 

with how great the offset of the centerline of the beam is from the 

centerline of the column. In the most severe case, the beam is entirely 

outside of the depth of the column. Only one Score Modifier is provided 

to capture all cases. This is for simplicity and because it will often only 

be possible to see the front face of the beam and column during the 

screening. 

	 “Other irregularity: There is another observable plan irregularity that 

obviously affects the building's seismic performance.” This statement 

allows the screener to apply a Score Modifier if a plan irregularity is 

4-10	 4: Completing the Optional Level 2 Data Collection Form FEMA P-154 
Figure 4-9 Rigid wall, flexible diaphragm building with short wall at small reentrant 

corner. 

observed that is not considered by the other irregularity statements. The 

screener uses judgment to decide when to use this. If such an irregularity 

is observed, the screener should describe it in the comments area. 

4.3.3 Redundancy 

Buildings that have more seismic force-resisting elements have greater 

redundancy and are expected to perform better in an earthquake than 

buildings with fewer seismic force-resisting elements. If the building has at 

least two bays of seismic force-resisting elements on each side of the 

building in each direction, there is a sufficient level of redundancy, the 

statement on the form is true, and the screener applies a positive Score 

Modifier. For buildings with shear walls, if the number of bays is not clear, 

then a bay can be defined as at least the height of the story. 

4.3.4 Pounding 

In the Level 2 screening, pounding is considered in the structural score. This 

is different than the Level 1 screening where, if there is pounding potential, 

FEMA P-154 4: Completing the Optional Level 2 Data Collection Form 4-11 
 

the score is not adjusted, but a Detailed Structural Evaluation is 

automatically triggered. 

In Very High seismicity regions, if the building being screened is separated 

from an adjacent structure by less than 1.50% of the height of the shorter of 

the building and adjacent structure, pounding may be an issue. This is 

reduced to 1.00% in High seismicity, 0.50% in Moderately High seismicity, 

0.25% in Moderate seismicity, and 0.10% in Low seismicity regions. The 

separation values are based on considerations of worst-case modal 

displacement at the upper end of the range for that seismicity region. See 

FEMA P-155 for more information on the basis of the separation thresholds. 

The Pounding Score Modifier varies according to the severity of type of 

pounding condition that exists. Where the separation gap is less than the 

threshold, three conditions are considered. Each of the conditions is stated 

and illustrated below. For each true statement, the screener circles the 

associated Score Modifier. For each false statement, the screener crosses out 

the associated Score Modifier. More than one of the pounding conditions 

may apply for a given building. In this case, the applicable Score Modifiers 

are summed, but need not exceed the cap indicated on the Level 2 form. 

	 “The floors do not align vertically within 2 feet.” Illustrated in Figure 

4-10. 

Figure 4-10 Illustration of floors not aligning vertically. 

	 “One of the buildings is two or more stories taller than the other.” 

Illustrated in Figure 4-11. 

	 “The building is at the end of the block.” This statement is applicable for 

a building at the end of a row of three or more buildings. Illustrated in 

Figure 4-12. 

4-12	 4: Completing the Optional Level 2 Data Collection Form FEMA P-154 
 

Figure 4-11 Illustration of a building that is two or more stories taller than 

the adjacent building. 

Figure 4-12 Illustration of end buildings. 

4.3.5 Consideration of Building Additions 

The Level 2 screening form does not have statements specific to building 

additions. Instead, the effect of different addition configurations on the 

seismic performance of the building is addressed by considering vertical or 

plan irregularities, or some combination of these depending on the 

configuration of the addition. See Section 3.14.5 for a general discussion 

regarding additions and the screening approach used in Level 1. 

For Level 2 screening, the Building Additions Reference Guide in Table 4-1 

(also repeated in Appendix B) provides guidance for considering additions. 

Based on the characteristics of the addition, the guide directs the screener to 

consider the original building and addition either as a single building or as 

two separate buildings and perform two separate screenings. However, if the 

addition is separated from the original building with an obvious gap, the 

building and the addition should be screened as two separate buildings and 

both scores should be recorded. Pounding criteria in Section 4.3.4 should be 

considered in this case. 

In a Level 2 screening, a vertical addition is evaluated for its effect on the 

presence of a vertical irregularity. A vertical addition is defined as the 

addition of one or more stories to a building after the initial construction. 

FEMA P-154 4: Completing the Optional Level 2 Data Collection Form 4-13 
 

 

Table 4-1 Building Additions Reference Guide 

Addition 

Orientation Type of Addition Example 

RVS Screening 

Recommendation 

Notes and Additional 

Instructions 

Vertical Single story addition has a 

smaller footprint than the 

original building 

Evaluate as a single 

building using the total 

number of stories of 

the original building 

and addition and 

indicate a setback 

vertical irregularity. 

Vertical setback 

irregularity applies if 

the area of the 

addition is less than 90 

percent of the area of 

the story below or if 

two or more walls of 

the addition are not 

aligned with the walls 

below. 

Vertical Single or multiple story 

addition with similar 

footprint and seismic 

force-resisting system as 

the original building 

Evaluate as a single 

building using the total 

number of stories of 

the building plus the 

addition. 

If the vertical elements 

of the seismic forceresisting system of the 

addition do not align 

with the vertical 

elements of the seismic 

force-resisting system 

below, apply the 

setback vertical 

irregularity. 

Vertical Single or multiple story 

addition in which the 

addition has a different 

seismic force-resisting 

system 

Evaluate as a single 

building with another 

observable moderate 

vertical irregularity. 

If the footprint of the 

addition is less than 90 

percent of the story 

below or if two or 

more walls of the 

addition are not 

aligned with the walls 

below, a setback 

vertical irregularity 

should also be 

indicated. 

Horizontal Addition with same 

construction type and 

number of stories as 

original and horizontal 

dimension of the narrower 

building at the interface is 

less than or equal to 50% 

of the length of the wider 

building 

Evaluate as a single 

building with a 

torsional irregularity 

plan irregularity. 

If the difference in 

horizontal dimension is 

between 50% and 

75%, indicate a 

reentrant corner 

irregularity. If the floor 

heights are not aligned 

within 2 feet, presence 

of pounding is 

indicated. 

Horizontal Addition with a different 

height than the original 

building 

Evaluate as a single 

building using the 

height of the taller 

building and indicate a 

Pounding Score 

Modifier if the heights 

of the buildings differ 

by more than 2 stories 

or if the floors do not 

align with 2 feet. 

If the horizontal 

dimension of the 

narrower of the two 

buildings along the 

interface is less than 

75% of the dimension 

of the wider, the 

reentrant corner plan 

irregularity should be 

indicated. 

The above horizontal addition scenarios assume that there is not an obvious separation gap between the addition and the 

original building. 

4-14 4: Completing the Optional Level 2 Data Collection Form FEMA P-154 
 

 

 

Table 4-1 Building Additions Reference Guide (continued) 

Addition 

Orientation Type of Addition Example 

RVS Screening 

Recommendation 

Notes and Additional 

Instructions 

Horizontal Addition with different 

FEMA Building Type 

than original 

Evaluate a single 

building with torsional 

irregularity using the 

FEMA Building Type 

with the lower Basic 

Score. 

If the floors do not 

align within 2 feet or 

the number of stories 

differs by more than 2 

stories, also indicate 

the appropriate 

Pounding Score 

Modifier. 

Horizontal Small addition where 

the addition relies on 

the original building for 

gravity support 

Evaluate as a single 

building. Evaluate for 

the presence of a 

setback irregularity if 

there is a difference in 

the number of stories 

and plan irregularity if 

there is a difference in 

horizontal dimension 

of the original building 

and addition along the 

interface. 

If the construction type 

of the addition is 

different than the 

original building, 

evaluate as two 

buildings with the 

addition as having an 

observable severe 

vertical irregularity. 

The above horizontal addition scenarios assume that there is not an obvious separation gap between the addition and the 

original building. 

Buildings originally constructed with different building types over their 

height, as is typical with wood framed residential buildings constructed over 

a concrete podium structure, should not be considered as having an addition. 

If a vertical addition is observed and there is a significant difference (more 

than 10%) in the plan area of a vertical addition compared to the plan area of 

the original building, a setback irregularity should be indicated on the Level 

2 form. A setback irregularity may also occur where more than one exterior 

wall of the addition does not align with an exterior wall below, implying that 

there may be an offset in the seismic force-resisting system. A rooftop 

penthouse need not be considered a vertical addition if there are no windows 

(implying no continuous occupancy) and the plan area is small relative to the 

area of the roof. 

If there is a difference in the seismic force-resisting system between the 

vertical addition and the original building, the weak/soft story evaluation 

criteria for the Level 2 form should be used to assess whether the addition 

creates a moderate or severe vertical irregularity. 

The presence of horizontal building additions can generally be identified by 

either vertical changes in the architectural or vertical system over the height 

of the building between portions of the building, difference in floor levels 

between portions of the building, differences in the seismic force-resisting 

FEMA P-154 4: Completing the Optional Level 2 Data Collection Form 4-15 
 

system or construction materials between various parts of the building, or 

abrupt differences in the architectural style on two or more sides of the 

building. 

Horizontal additions that have a smaller or larger horizontal dimension along 

the interface than the original building should be evaluated for the presence 

of a reentrant corner irregularity using the reentrant corner subcategory of the 

Level 2 form. If the seismic force-resisting system of the addition is 

different than that of the original building, the torsional irregularity statement 

for plan irregularity should be indicated as applicable on the Level 2 form. 

Where the height of the horizontal addition is greater than or less than the 

height of the original building, a moderate vertical setback irregularity is also 

present. 

Small horizontal additions may rely on the original building for gravity 

support. Small additions constructed with the same FEMA Building Type as 

the original building can be considered a single building, but should be 

evaluated for the presence of setback and plan irregularities. Where the 

addition is of a different FEMA Building Type than the original building, the 

structures may respond differently and may become disconnected at the 

interface. In this case the addition should be considered as a separate 

structure to evaluate whether it has sufficient independent lateral force 

resistance. 

4.3.6 Building Type Specific Statements 

The Level 2 form includes several building type specific statements. These 

statements allow the Level 2 screener to modify the building score for 

several conditions that are known to affect building performance. 

	 “S2 building: ‘K’ bracing geometry is visible.” K bracing is when the 

braces intersect the column at mid-height without a horizontal member or 

connection to a diaphragm. When one of the braces buckles in 

compression, it can place high horizontal demands on the column, and 

the column can be at increased risk of failure and collapse. 

	 “C1 building: Flat plate serves as the beam in the moment frame.” In 

many older concrete moment frame buildings, the flat plate floor serves 

as an effective beam in the moment frame system. However, the flat 

plate is not detailed like a beam with stirrups and does not have a drop 

capital like a flat slab. The flat plate can thus be at increased risk of a 

punching shear failure, leading to local collapse. 

	 “PC1/RM1 building: There are roof-to-wall ties that are visible or 

known from drawings that do not rely on cross-grain bending.” Do not 

4-16	 4: Completing the Optional Level 2 Data Collection Form FEMA P-154 
   

apply this Score Modifier in combination with the post-benchmark or 

retrofit Score Modifiers, to avoid double-counting this benefit. Note that 

roof-to-wall ties may also be observed in C2 buildings with wood roof 

diaphragms. Basic Scores for C2 are based on the more typical condition 

where diaphragms are concrete and tied to the concrete walls with 

continuous rebar. Thus, an added benefit for anchored wood diaphragms 

is not provided. 

	 “URM: Gable walls are present.” URM gable walls are normally not 

braced and are often vulnerable to out-of-plane failure. Because these 

walls often provide vertical support for the roof, failure of the gable wall 

can result in partial collapse. An illustration of a building with a gable 

wall is provided in Figure 4-13. 

Gable Wall

Figure 4-13 Illustration of a URM building with a gable end wall. 

	 “MH: There is a supplemental seismic bracing system provided between 

the carriage and the ground.” The Basic Score for MH type buildings 

has been defined assuming that supplemental seismic bracing is absent. 

In some cases, the bracing is observed in the field, although this is rare 

because MH type buildings commonly have skirts on all sides. More 

often, bracing is known to exist only if there are local codes requiring 

bracing or the mobile home park in which it is located has specific 

bracing requirements. 

4.3.7 Retrofits 

In the Level 2 screening, the screener may apply a positive Score Modifier 

when there is evidence that the building has been retrofitted. The Score 

Modifier should only be applied when the retrofit is comprehensive. A 

FEMA P-154 4: Completing the Optional Level 2 Data Collection Form 4-17 
 

comprehensive retrofit is one that addresses all of the elements in the lateral 

load path. Added elements that mitigate localized hazards, such as added 

wall ties or parapet bracing, do not qualify for the Score Modifier. 

Partial retrofits and in-progress or incremental retrofits should be noted in the 

comments section, without applying the Score Modifier. If the retrofit 

appears to effectively counteract an observed deficiency, the screener can 

simply apply neither the deficiency nor the retrofit Score Modifier, but 

mention both in the comments. The screener can recognize a retrofit that 

introduces a deficiency (e.g., by introducing a torsional irregularity) by 

applying the appropriate Score Modifier for the deficiency and by 

commenting that it is the retrofit that produced it. 

In a visual screening, it is unlikely that all elements in a lateral load path can 

be observed. However, it is often possible to see the vertical elements of a 

seismic retrofit, such as moment frames, braced frames, and sometimes shear 

walls. Because of the cost and disruption involved, when these elements are 

added, it is likely that these elements are part of a comprehensive retrofit. 

For example, when braced frames are added in a URM building, it would be 

expected that ties between the diaphragm and walls have been installed, as 

well as parapet and gable bracing. Thus, if vertical elements in a retrofit are 

observed, the Score Modifier can be applied. 

Common observable retrofit measures that are indicative of a sufficiently 

comprehensive retrofit include: 

	 Added cripple wall bracing and holdowns in a W1. 

	 Added steel moment frames in a W1 house over garage or W1A open 

front building. 

	 Added steel moment frames or braced frames in a S5, C3, or URM. 

Ideally, the retrofit will be documented in available construction drawings. In 

this case, the pre-field planning should identify whether the Score Modifier is 

applicable. If drawings are not available but the screener observes evidence 

of a retrofit in the field, the screener may use judgment about the efficacy of 

the retrofit. For example, a URM building that has been retrofitted with 

small braced frames adjacent to URM walls may not warrant the retrofit 

Score Modifier because the braced frame likely has insufficient stiffness to 

attract much load away from the URM wall. 

The screener should describe the observed retrofit in the comments section. 

In general, the value of the Retrofit Score Modifier has been set to be 

4-18	 4: Completing the Optional Level 2 Data Collection Form FEMA P-154 
 

 

equivalent to having mitigated the effects of a plan irregularity. A retrofit 

does not guarantee that a building will receive a score above the cut-off. 

4.4 Determining the Final Level 2 Score 

The Final Level 2 Score, SL2, is calculated by summing the baseline score, S', 

and the Level 2 Score Modifiers, VL2, PL2, and M subject to the same 

minimum score that applies to the Level 1 Score. In many cases, the Level 2 

screening results in a higher score than the Level 1 screening. Because 

building attributes are examined in more detail in the Level 2 screening, the 

Score Modifiers can be less conservative. The Final Score more accurately 

represents the expected performance of the building with less built-in 

conservatism. 

The Final Level 2 Score is subject to the same minimum, SMIN, as the Level 1 

Score. 

4.5 Other Observable Conditions 

The screener is asked whether there is observable damage or deterioration or 

another condition that negatively affects the building’s seismic performance. 

If there is such a condition, the screener is given the option to note on the 

Level 1 form that a Detailed Structural Evaluation is required, regardless of 

the building’s score. This allows for flexibility in the event that the Level 2 

screener observes an uncommon condition he or she knows may represent a 

significant hazard. The screener should describe the condition in the 

comments box. The screener should also take additional photographs of the 

condition. This information will be further reviewed by the Supervising 

Engineer. 

4.5.1 Damage and Deterioration 

Suggestions for evaluating damage and deterioration during a Level 1 

screening are provided in Section 3.12. The Level 2 screener should review 

these same items. The Level 2 screener, however, should use judgment to 

distinguish between damage to components of the seismic force-resisting 

system and damage that is cosmetic only. The Level 2 screener may be able 

to determine whether observed cracks in concrete are due to settlement or are 

due to past earthquake damage. Corrosion in steel elements that are primary 

members of the gravity load-carrying or seismic force-resisting system is a 

greater cause for concern than corrosion in elements that are purely 

architectural. 

FEMA P-154 4: Completing the Optional Level 2 Data Collection Form 4-19 
4.5.2 Other Conditions 

If the Level 2 screener observes a condition that indicates the building is 

potentially seismically hazardous, even if that condition is not discussed 

here, the screener should describe this condition in the comments box and 

indicate on the Level 1 form that a Detailed Structural Evaluation is required. 

For example, tilt-ups and some S1 and S3 buildings commonly have added 

mezzanines with no seismic force-resisting system. As a result, the 

mezzanine can be at risk of collapse, or it may be located where it can pound 

into the primary seismic force-resisting system of the building, potentially 

causing damage or collapse of the building. 

4.6 Observable Nonstructural Hazards 

The bottom portion of the Level 2 form focuses on nonstructural hazards (see 

Figure 4-14). Nonstructural modifiers do not strongly affect collapse 

probability, thus these modifiers do not affect the building Final Score. 

Figure 4-14 Portion of the Level 2 form for nonstructural hazards. 

In areas of low seismicity, nonstructural hazards can be important for lifesafety considerations in a large rare earthquake. Heavy exterior cladding and 

parapets have dislodged during past earthquakes and killed passers-by. 

Nonstructural ceilings, light fixtures, heavy cabinets, and shelves can also 

injure occupants and block exitways. Glass shards from untempered 

windows and doors can also be hazardous, particularly if located near 

emergency exits. 

The statements on this portion of the form primarily relate to falling hazards, 

but unlike the Level 1 form, they also include some other nonstructural 

hazards as well. The screener notes whether each statement is true and 

makes any relevant comments as the statements are reviewed. There are 

seven statements addressing exterior falling hazards and two statements 

addressing interior falling hazards. These later statements should be 

addressed if access to the interior of the building is available. The statements 

4-20 4: Completing the Optional Level 2 Data Collection Form FEMA P-154 
on the Level 2 form reflect similar falling hazards as those listed on the Level 

1 form, but the Level 2 statements are more specific. 

	 Exterior: 

o	 “There is an unbraced unreinforced masonry parapet, or unbraced 

unreinforced masonry chimney.” 

o	 “There is heavy cladding or heavy veneer.” 

o	 “There is a heavy canopy over exit doors or pedestrian walkways 

that appears inadequately supported.” 

o	 “There is an unreinforced masonry appendage over exit doors or 

pedestrian walkways.” 

o	 “There is a sign posted on the building that indicates hazardous 

materials are present.” 

o	 “There is a taller adjacent building with an unanchored URM wall 

or unbraced URM parapet or chimney.” 

o	 “Other observed exterior nonstructural falling hazard:” 

	 Interior: 

o	 “There are hollow clay tile or brick partitions at any stair or exit 

corridor.” 

o	 “Other observed interior nonstructural falling hazard:” 

After reviewing each of the statements, the screener uses judgment to 

estimate the nonstructural seismic performance of the building. One of three 

boxes is checked: 

	 “Potential nonstructural hazards with significant threat to occupant life 

safety  Detailed Nonstructural Evaluation recommended.” This box 

should be checked if a potential nonstructural hazard has been identified 

and additional evaluation may reveal that the suspected hazard is not 

actually a threat to occupant life safety. For example, a detailed 

evaluation of a building's heavy cladding may reveal that it is properly 

anchored and is not a threat. 

	 “Nonstructural hazard identified with significant threat to occupant life 

safety  But no Detailed Nonstructural Evaluation required.” This box 

should be checked if a nonstructural hazard has been identified and no 

additional evaluation is necessary. For example, additional evaluation of 

an unbraced unreinforced masonry chimney will not be able to show that 

the chimney is not a hazard. 

FEMA P-154 4: Completing the Optional Level 2 Data Collection Form 4-21 
	 “Low or no nonstructural hazard threat to occupant life safety  No 

Detailed Nonstructural Evaluation required.” This box should be 

checked if all of the statements are false. If one of the statements is true 

but the screener does not believe that the identified hazard is a threat to 

life safety, the screener should check this box and describe in the 

comments section why the falling hazard is not a threat. 

If the screener is in doubt about whether any of the statements is true, these 

doubts should be noted in the comments section. Similarly, the screener 

should note any doubts about the estimated nonstructural seismic 

performance. 

4.7 Comments 

A space is provided on the Level 2 form for comments. The screener should 

use this area to note any special conditions that have been observed or to 

indicate issues that could not be verified in the field. In particular, the 

screener should describe in detail any observed damage or deterioration or 

any observed other vertical or plan irregularities. If additional space is 

needed for notes or sketches, the screener can use the comments section and 

the sketch space on the Level 1 form or attach a separate sheet of paper. 

4.8 Transferring the Level 2 Results to the Level 1 Form 

The Final Level 2 Score, SL2, is transferred to the Level 1 form and 

supersedes the Final Level 1 Score. The Level 2 screener should also 

indicate on the Level 1 form the results of the Level 2 nonstructural 

screening. The screener then completes or revises the “Other Hazards” and 

“Action Required” portions of the Level 1 form based on these results. 

4-22	 4: Completing the Optional Level 2 Data Collection Form FEMA P-154 
Chapter 5 

Using the RVS Procedure 

Results 

5.1 Using the RVS Procedure Results 

The rapid visual screening (RVS) procedure presented in this Handbook is 

meant to be the preliminary screening phase of a multi-phase procedure for 

identifying earthquake-hazardous buildings. Buildings identified by this 

procedure as potentially seismically hazardous should be analyzed in more 

detail by an experienced seismic design professional. Typically, an 

evaluation according to ASCE/SEI 41-13, Seismic Evaluation and Retrofit of 

Existing Buildings (ASCE, 2014), will be most appropriate for those 

buildings that require a Detailed Structural Evaluation. Where further 

nonstructural evaluation is desired based on the results of the rapid visual 

screening, FEMA E-74, Reducing the Risks of Nonstructural Earthquake 

Damage – A Practical Guide, Fourth Edition (FEMA, 2012e), is 

recommended. Based on more detailed evaluation, some of the buildings 

identified as potentially hazardous by the RVS procedure will prove to be 

adequate. The procedure is designed to catch as many of the potentially 

hazardous buildings as possible, but, because rapid visual screening is 

designed to be performed from the street, with interior inspection not always 

possible, hazardous details may not always be visible, and some seismically 

hazardous buildings may not be identified as such. 

Since the original publication of FEMA 154 in 1988, the RVS procedure has 

been widely used by local communities and government agencies. A critical 

issue in the implementation of FEMA 154 has been the interpretation of the 

Final Score, SL1 or SL2 (combined as S for this chapter), and the selection of a 

cut-off score, below which a Detailed Structural Evaluation of the building 

by a design professional experienced in seismic design is required. 

This chapter discusses: (1) interpretation and selection of the cut-off score; 

(2) prior uses of the FEMA 154 RVS procedure, including decisions 

regarding the cut-off score; (3) using the RVS program for seismic advocacy; 

and (4) other possible uses of the RVS procedure, including resources needed 

for the various possible uses. These discussions are intended to illuminate 

both the limitations and potential applications of the RVS procedure. 

FEMA P-154 5: Using the RVS Procedure Results 5-1 
5.2 Interpretation of RVS Score 

Having employed the RVS procedure and determined the building’s Final 

Score, S, which is based on the Basic Score and Score Modifiers associated 

with the various performance attributes, the RVS Authority is faced with the 

question of what these S scores mean. Fundamentally, the final S score is an 

estimate of the collapse probability (as described in Chapter 1) if an 

earthquake occurs with ground motions called the risk-targeted maximum 

considered earthquake, MCER, as described in Chapter 2. These estimates of 

the score are based on limited observed and analytical data, and the 

probability of collapse is therefore approximate. 

A Final Score, S, of 3 implies there is a chance of 1 in 103

, or 1 in 1,000, that 

the building will collapse if such ground motions occur. A Final Score, S, of 

2 implies there is a chance of 1 in 102

, or 1 in 100, that the building will 

collapse if such ground motions occur. (Additional information about the 

basis for the RVS scoring system is provided in the third edition companion 

FEMA P-155 Report, Rapid Visual Screening of Buildings for Potential 

Seismic Hazards: Supporting Documentation.) An understanding of the 

physical essence of the scoring system, as described above, will facilitate the 

interpretation of results from implementation of the RVS procedure 

5.3 Selection of RVS Cut-Off Score 

One of the most difficult issues pertaining to rapid visual screening is 

answering the question, “What is an acceptable Final Score, S?” This is a 

question for the community that involves the costs of safety versus the 

benefits. The costs of safety include: 

	 the costs of reviewing and investigating in detail hundreds or thousands 

of buildings in order to identify some fraction of those that would 

actually sustain major damage in an earthquake; and 

	 the costs associated with retrofitting those buildings finally determined to 

be unacceptably weak. 

The most compelling benefit is the saving of lives and prevention of injuries 

due to reduced damage in those buildings that are retrofitted. This reduced 

damage includes not only less material damage, but fewer major disruptions 

to daily lives and businesses. The identification of hazardous buildings and 

the mitigation of their hazards are critical because there are thousands of 

existing buildings in all parts of the United States that may suffer severe 

damage or possible collapse in the event of strong ground shaking. Such 

5-2 5: Using the RVS Procedure Results FEMA P-154 
 

 

damage or collapse can be accompanied by loss of life and serious injury. In 

a great earthquake, deaths could number in the thousands. 

Each community or RVS Authority needs to engage in some consideration of 

these costs and benefits of seismic safety, and decide what value of S is an 

appropriate “cut-off” for their situation. The final decision involves many 

non-technical factors, such as determining the acceptable level of risk for the 

community, and is not straightforward. A study quantifying the risk inherent 

in modern building codes, conducted by the National Bureau of Standards 

(NBS, 1980), observed: “In selecting the target reliability it was decided, 

after carefully examining the resulting reliability indices for the many design 

situations, that a 0 =3 is a representative average value for many frequently 

used structural elements when they are subjected to gravity loading, while 0 

=2.5 and 0 =1.75 are representative values for loads that include wind and 

earthquake, respectively.” Note that 0, as used in the National Bureau of 

Standards study, is approximately equivalent to S – 1 as used herein. 

More recently, FEMA P-695, Quantification of Building Seismic 

Performance Factors (FEMA, 2009b), which established consistent and 

rational building system performance and response parameters for the linear 

design methods traditionally used in current building codes, concluded that it 

is acceptable that: “The probability of collapse due to MCE ground motions 

applied to a population of [buildings of the same type] is limited to 10%, on 

average.” The 10% figure is an upper bound. After accounting for how 

conservative it is, that is, how the average real new building behaves rather 

than the upper limit, and accounting for the fraction of the building area that 

collapses, one can estimate that new buildings might realistically have an 

average S = 2.5. (See FEMA P-155 Chapter 8 for more details on this 

estimate.) Assuming that existing buildings can reasonably have a somewhat 

lower value of S than new buildings, the authors of the present work suggest 

that the acceptable probability of collapse in existing buildings is again 

roughly equivalent to a value of S of about 2.0. 

Thus, an S value of about 2.0 is a reasonable preliminary value to use within 

the context of RVS to differentiate adequate buildings from those potentially 

inadequate and requiring detailed review. This is the value that has 

traditionally been used by RVS programs in the past. Use of a higher cut-off 

S value implies greater desired safety but increased community-wide costs 

for evaluations and rehabilitation; use of a lower value of S equates to 

increased seismic risk and lower short-term community-wide costs for 

evaluations and rehabilitation (prior to an earthquake). 

FEMA P-154 5: Using the RVS Procedure Results 5-3 
 

It is important to keep in mind that the final S score relates specifically to the 

probability of collapse. Use of a higher cut-off score implies less probability 

of collapse, but it does not ensure that other performance objectives, such as 

continued operation after an earthquake, will be met. If higher performance 

objectives are desired, for example for special structures such as hospitals, 

the use of a more detailed structural evaluation, along with a nonstructural 

evaluation, is necessary. 

Further guidance on cost and other societal implications of seismic 

rehabilitation of hazardous buildings is available in other publications of the 

FEMA report series on existing buildings. See FEMA 156 and FEMA 157, 

Typical Costs for Seismic Rehabilitation of Buildings, 2nd Edition, Volumes 

1 and 2 (FEMA, 1994a and FEMA, 1995), and FEMA 255 and FEMA 256, 

Seismic Rehabilitation of Federal Buildings – A Benefit/Cost Model, 

Volumes 1 and 2 (FEMA, 1994b and FEMA, 1994c). 

5.4 Prior Uses of the RVS Procedure 

Following publication of the first edition of the FEMA 154 Handbook, the 

rapid visual screening procedure was used by private-sector organizations 

and government agencies to evaluate more than 70,000 buildings nationwide 

(FEMA, 2002b). As reported at the FEMA 154 Users Workshop in San 

Francisco in September 2000 (see second edition of FEMA 155 report for 

additional information), these applications included surveys of the following 

buildings: (1) commercial buildings in Beverly Hills, California; (2) National 

Park Service facilities; (3) public buildings and designated shelters in 

southern Illinois; (4) U. S. Army facilities; (5) facilities of the U. S. 

Department of the Interior; and (6) buildings in other local communities and 

for other government agencies. The results from some of these efforts are 

described below. 

In its screening of 11,500 buildings using the FEMA 154 RVS procedure, the 

U. S. Army Corps of Engineers Civil Engineering Research Laboratory 

(CERL) used a cut-off score of 2.5, rather than 2.0 (S. Sweeney, oral 

communication, September 2000), with the specific intent of using a more 

conservative approach. As a result of the FEMA 154 screening, 

approximately 5,000 buildings had final S scores less than 2.5. These 

buildings, along with a subset of buildings that had FEMA 154 scores higher 

than 2.5, but were of concern for other reasons, were further evaluated in 

detail using the FEMA 178 report, NEHRP Handbook for the Seismic 

Evaluation of Existing Buildings (FEMA, 1992). Results from the 

subsequent FEMA 178 evaluations indicated that some buildings that failed 

the FEMA 154 RVS procedure (that is, had scores less than 2.5) passed the 

5-4 5: Using the RVS Procedure Results FEMA P-154 
FEMA 178 evaluations and that some that passed the FEMA 154 RVS 

procedure (with scores higher than 2.5) failed the FEMA 178 evaluation (that 

is, were found to have inadequate seismic resistance). This finding 

emphasizes the concern identified at the beginning of this chapter that the use 

of FEMA 154 may not always identify potentially earthquake hazardous 

buildings as such, and that buildings identified as potentially hazardous may 

prove to be adequate. 

Other conclusions and recommendations pertaining to the use of the FEMA 

154 RVS procedure that emanated from these early applications included the 

following: 

	 Involve design professionals in RVS implementation whenever possible 

to ensure that the seismic force-resisting systems are correctly identified 

(such identification is particularly difficult in buildings that have been 

remodeled and added to over the years); 

	 Conduct intensive training for screeners so that they fully understand 

how to implement the methodology, in all of its aspects; 

	 Inspect both the exterior and, if at all possible, the interior of the 

building; 

	 Review construction drawings when available as part of the screening 

process; 

	 Review soils information prior to implementation of the methodology in 

the field; and 

	 Interpret the results from FEMA 154 screenings in a manner consistent 

with the level of resources available for the screening (for example, cutoff scores may be dictated by budget constraints). 

Most of these recommendations were incorporated into the second edition of 

the Handbook. In this Third Edition, the recommendation to involve a 

design professional in RVS implementation has been further stressed with 

the introduction of the Supervising Engineer. See Chapter 2 for more details. 

More recent uses of the RVS procedure include several efforts in Oregon and 

Utah. 

The state of Oregon has conducted many assessments of the vulnerability of 

facilities using the rapid visual screening method based upon the second 

edition of FEMA 154. One example is for Clackamas County where all the 

schools and emergency facilities were screened, which helped lead to a 

statewide assessment (Wang et al., 2004). 

FEMA P-154 5: Using the RVS Procedure Results 5-5 
In Oregon, a series of bills were passed in 2005 to assess the state’s 

vulnerability to earthquakes on critical buildings. Of these, the 2005 Senate 

Bill 2 directed Oregon’s Department of Geology and Mineral Industries 

(DOGAMI) to create a seismic survey of K-12 public school buildings, 

community college buildings with an occupancy of 250 persons or more, 

hospitals with acute inpatient care facilities, fire stations, police stations, 

sheriff’s offices, and other law enforcement agency buildings. DOGAMI 

used a modified version of FEMA 154 Second Edition report by developing 

an enhanced RVS methodology called the E-RVS methodology. The results 

for all screened sites in each county are available at 

http://www.oregongeology.org/sub/projects/rvs/county/county-sites.htm. 

This E-RVS method has also been integrated into the Oregon Seismic 

Rehabilitation Grant Program, which requires that benefit cost analysis 

methods incorporate E-RVS (http://www.oregon.gov/OMD/OEM/Pages 

/plans_train/SRGP.aspx; and Wang and Goettel (2007)). 

The survey was performed on 3,352 pre-1994 unretrofitted buildings by 

experienced university engineering and architecture professors from Oregon, 

along with selected students. DOGAMI senior staff and project leaders 

reviewed and verified the findings to produce the final results. The project 

identified over 60% of the buildings screened as having moderate to very 

high collapse potential with a score of 2.0 or below. The survey included 

buildings of all ages and is considered to be a representative example of the 

classes of buildings considered by FEMA 154. 

In Utah, given that a significant number of schools pre-dated the 1975 advent 

of lateral design in the state’s adopted code, the Utah Seismic Safety 

Commission together with the Structural Engineers Association of Utah 

(SEAU) recognized that Utah schools represent an important class of 

buildings that deserve special consideration for seismic safety. Beginning in 

2008, they supported legislation to perform RVS on schools. In 2010, a pilot 

project was undertaken to support HB 279 (Rep. Wiley, L., 2012 Legislative 

session) using FEMA P-154 Rapid Observation of Vulnerability and 

Estimation of Risk (ROVER) (FEMA, 2014), an electronic version of FEMA 

154, by trained structural engineers on a sampling of 128 schools. 

The findings, published in the report Utah Students at Risk (Utah Seismic 

Safety Commission and Structural Engineers Association of Utah, 2011) 

showed that 60% of the sample buildings surveyed were at danger of 

collapse during a major earthquake along the Wasatch fault. The project 

sampled buildings in all age groups and was distributed proportionally 

throughout the state. Additionally, buildings were selected in four major 

building categories: elementary, middle, high and charter schools. The report 

5-6 5: Using the RVS Procedure Results FEMA P-154 
FEMA P-154 5: Using the RVS Procedure Results 5-7 

was used to support continuing legislative efforts to inventory all Utah 

schools. 

During the 2013 legislative session, lawmakers approved two measures to 

help advance the seismic safety of Utah’s school buildings. The School 

Building Earthquake Inspection program is a $150,000 one-time budget item 

championed by Utah’s governor to perform FEMA P-154 Rapid Visual 

Screening on all Utah schools. Additionally, House Bill HB278S01 Public 

Schools Seismic Studies requires that school districts requesting bond monies 

perform FEMA P-154 Rapid Visual Screening or more detailed studies on all 

of their buildings constructed before 1975 and provide the results to the Utah 

Seismic Safety Commission (USSC). The costs for these studies would be 

paid for out of the general obligation bonds. If a district has already 

performed a seismic safety evaluation on the affected buildings within the 

last 25 years, the district need only submit the information to the USSC. 

Both programs anticipate using the FEMA P-154 ROVER tool for data 

collection and evaluation purposes. 

In 2011, the SEAU received a grant from the FEMA to provide a survey of 

2,500 buildings in Salt Lake County. The purpose of the work was to assist 

in the development of the state’s catastrophic earthquake support plan. The 

project involved the use of 50 structural engineers over a period of several 

months. Buildings for the survey were selected from Salt Lake county 

assessor data and were refined to include buildings with brick exterior older 

than 1975 and occupancy categories that would reflect the greatest threat to 

human life and mutually benefit FEMA and state response and mitigation 

planning. 

Results from the survey revealed that approximately 72% of the buildings 

were deemed to need additional detailed evaluation with scores equal or 

below 2.0. FEMA’s HAZUS software [whose methodology is documented 

in the Multi-hazard Loss Estimation Methodology, HAZUS-MH MR4 

Technical Manual (FEMA, 2009a)] was used to assess potential impacts 

using the results from the survey and a magnitude 7.0 scenario earthquake 

and published online in FEMA’s GeoPlatform: http://bit.ly/13Y5w6L. The 

1,228 buildings that scored below 1.5 were specifically flagged for Urban 

Search and Rescue (USAR) planning. Additionally, it was found that the 

actual number of unreinforced masonry buildings was somewhat less than 

had been estimated using the 1975 benchmark date and those described as 

brick exterior, thereby providing a better estimate of vulnerability. 
5.5 RVS and Seismic Advocacy 

5.5.1 Overview 

As noted in the foreword to the first edition of FEMA 155, “The publication 

is one of a series that FEMA is sponsoring to encourage local decision 

makers, the design professions, and other interested groups to undertake a 

program of mitigating risks that would be posed by existing hazardous 

buildings in case of an earthquake.” 

Perhaps one of the primary reasons for performing rapid visual screening of 

buildings is to advocate for greater seismic safety in our communities. An 

uninformed public cannot be expected to make decisions about risk without 

fully realizing the impact inaction may have on the quality of life following 

an earthquake. Recognizing the potential impacts and planning to reduce 

them only comes when good information is available and that understanding 

starts with rapid visual screening. 

Finding support for performing RVS can often be a challenging task. 

Identifying vulnerable buildings in communities is sometimes seen as a 

liability with the inherent responsibility to fix or eliminate the danger. But 

these concerns can often be assuaged by noting that the RVS survey points 

toward the need for additional investigation to better determine the 

vulnerability of the identified buildings. If public buildings are the focus of 

the survey, specific language can often be added to legislation that 

effectively limits the liability associated with identifying dangerous buildings 

and creates a form of governmental immunity from lawsuits. 

If surveys are performed on public buildings, strong consideration should be 

given to making the information directly available to the general public. 

When doing so, the information should be clearly explained, including the 

limitations of the assessment and that it is a first step in identifying 

vulnerable buildings. 

Rapid visual screening can provide better information when developing 

seismic rehabilitation programs that benefit communities in becoming more 

resilient to the effects of earthquakes. Surveys will help quantify the 

problem and help communities make informed decisions about their risk. 

Rehabilitation programs will inevitably require accepting some portion of 

risk and knowing the potential extent of damage to buildings through RVS 

will provide support for those decisions. 

Pilot programs that sample a small percentage of buildings have been 

effectively used in Utah to promote the need for an inventory of all Utah 

5-8 5: Using the RVS Procedure Results FEMA P-154 
school buildings. In Oregon, a comprehensive survey has helped guide that 

state’s investment in seismic mitigation of high-risk buildings. In short, RVS 

is an effective tool when addressing large portfolio building owners. 

5.5.2 Audience Types 

Information such as that provided by a rapid visual screening program will 

have value to a variety of audience types. It is important to identify the 

target audiences when constructing an RVS program so that the results will 

meet the desired goals. 

Local elected and appointed officials as well as design professionals will 

benefit not only from the engineering and technical results, but it may also 

bolster their efforts to help shape public policy through designing mitigation 

programs and identifying a community’s seismic rehabilitation needs. 

Another benefit to this group will be in helping to understand the postearthquake inspection needs in terms of inspectors and the time frame for 

recovery. 

Emergency management personnel will benefit from the use of more 

accurate building inventories incorporated into their regional earthquake 

damage and loss estimate projections. Additionally, temporary housing and 

medical and emergency response facility needs can be better understood once 

the extent of vulnerable buildings and its impact on the region are estimated 

and understood. 

Building owners, facility managers, financial managers, and risk managers 

can use the RVS results to better assess ways to reduce financial exposure 

from the effects of earthquakes on their buildings. 

Planners and development professionals can benefit from the use of RVS 

surveys as they consider land use policies appropriate for existing and new 

construction. 

Lastly, the public will benefit from inventories identifying the vulnerable 

building stocks in their communities. This is one of the most under-utilized 

benefits of RVS in that an informed public is perhaps the best advocate for 

advancing seismic safety in our communities. 

5.5.3 RVS Program Types 

As noted in the previous section, there are a number of potential audiences 

that will benefit from a rapid visual screening program. Keeping the goal of 

the RVS survey in mind will help shape the extent of resources needed. 

FEMA P-154 5: Using the RVS Procedure Results 5-9 
 

The RVS program described in this Handbook assumes a comprehensive 

approach to researching and examining the building stock as the primary 

goal. There are, however, many pieces of information, which may either not 

be available, or provide contradictory data which will establish the level of 

credibility of the findings. For instance, the availability of construction 

drawings adds significant confidence to the identification of the FEMA 

Building Type in the Data Collection Forms. Also, field confirmation of 

construction quality can add a valuable component in estimating building 

vulnerability during an earthquake. 

Given that not all the necessary attributes to a “full” RVS survey will be 

known when the process is started, it may be particularly hard to commit to 

the quality of the survey until well into the process. This aspect should be 

tracked by the Program Manager and documented in the final 

recommendations. 

There are, however, steps during the determination of the purpose of the 

RVS survey and the desired audiences to address that can help shape the 

extent of investigation needed. 

For instance, surveys intended to help shape the development of retrofit 

ordinances need to be fairly comprehensive since the number of buildings 

captured and the economic effects of policies will be a significant factor in 

setting the thresholds and priority criteria in legislation. 

For loss estimation purposes, rapid visual screening surveys can sample 

significant portions of the building stock and extrapolate data to make likely 

projections of vulnerability within a community. 

Lastly, when beginning to look for specific dangerous building types within a 

community, such as unreinforced masonry or nonductile concrete 

construction, surveys that capture numbers of instances are often more useful 

than specific ratings. Results of these surveys are often used as an indication 

that appropriate seismic mitigation action is necessary. 

Some programs may wish to conduct screening programs that are as simple 

as possible, and may wish to base screening scores solely on the Basic Score 

associated with each building being screened, or similarly, the Minimum 

Score. This simplified approach is not recommended and is not expected to 

provide the RVS Authority with meaningful or accurate data on the seismic 

hazard of their building stock. 

5-10 5: Using the RVS Procedure Results FEMA P-154 
 

 5.5.4 Use of RVS Inventories in Advocating Seismic Safety 

Developing mitigation programs generally starts with determining the scope 

and number of targeted building types. This crucial first step is necessary to 

develop interest and support for any necessary action a community may 

desire to reduce their risk. 

Inventories can often form the backbone of support for legislation such as 

improving the performance of public school buildings during earthquakes. 

Identifying poor and questionable performers often raises significant support 

for greater accountability for seismic safety in public buildings. RVS is a 

relatively simple method of identifying the extent of potentially inadequate 

seismic performance of a large inventory of buildings. 

In particular, an electronic database of building information can help with 

advocating for seismic safety by providing visibility. Information collected 

during an RVS program can be downloaded into Geographic Information 

Systems (GIS) and displayed visually in reports or presentations. Use of a 

program, such as FEMA P-154 ROVER, makes this process easier. These 

visual depictions are helpful in persuading decision-makers since they put a 

face on the problems or issues related to poor buildings in our communities. 

Inventories can also be made publically available on the web and searchable 

for specific information. These uses generally require full agreement by the 

building owners and often are most easily agreed to if they involve public 

buildings. An example of this is the Oregon Statewide Seismic Needs 

Assessment Using Rapid Visual Screening (RVS) reports, available at 

http://www.oregongeology.org/sub/projects/rvs/county/county-sites.htm. 

5.5.5 Using RVS Results in Advocating for Seismic Safety 

Rapid visual screening can be a valuable tool for supporting efforts to raise 

awareness about building vulnerabilities in communities. Information can be 

gathered both in advance of seeking support and as the result of wanting to 

better assess and plan for the needs for mitigation efforts. The following 

examples illustrate these two approaches. 

The findings of the 2010 pilot study conducted by USSC and SEAU 

surveying school buildings were used in legislative committee hearings to 

help substantiate the need for a complete survey. As a result, FEMA 

provided a grant to survey 2,500 additional buildings in the county. 

In Oregon, the results of the RVS program directed by DOGAMI in 2005 

were later used to create a grant program for local communities to strengthen 

FEMA P-154 5: Using the RVS Procedure Results 5-11
 

the most vulnerable schools and emergency facilities as directed through 

Senate Bill 3. 

5.5.6 Additional FEMA Tools for Supporting Mitigation Programs 

Once an RVS program has helped establish the need for consideration of 

seismic vulnerabilities in a community, there are a number of additional tools 

available to promote mitigation efforts. 

The Seismic Rehabilitation Cost Estimator (SRCE) provides a simple way to 

estimate approximate rehabilitation costs by answering a series of questions 

about the building(s) being evaluated. This can be valuable in determining 

orders of magnitude costs when discussing the implications of a mitigation 

program. 

When advocating for seismic mitigation programs, actual rehabilitation costs 

are often stumbling blocks if perceived as single stage expenses. FEMA has 

developed the Incremental Seismic Rehabilitation series of documents to 

address alternative ways to integrate seismic improvements over extended 

periods of time by integrating seismic work into regular and planned 

maintenance and improvement projects. 

The SRCE and the Incremental Seismic Rehabilitation series of documents 

are both available from FEMA’s website (www.fema.gov/earthquake). 

When RVS data include information on numbers of occupants and square 

footage, FEMA’s HAZUS Advanced Engineering Building Module (FEMA, 

2003) could further help characterize impacts into estimated casualties, as 

well as structural and nonstructural economic losses. This information 

greatly helps in translating vulnerability into easily understood potential 

impacts and can be used to further prioritize additional evaluation and 

mitigation strategies. 

A further step could involve use of FEMA P-58, Seismic Performance 

Assessment of Buildings, Volume 1 – The Methodology (FEMA, 2012d), to 

evaluate selected buildings that do not meet the cut-off score to provide 

refined estimates of deaths and injuries, repair and replacement costs, repair 

time and post-earthquake safety evaluation tagging or placarding status. 

Additionally, advocates may consider other resources such as FEMA state 

earthquake programs that support funding of RVS surveys to determine 

seismic vulnerability. 

5-12 5: Using the RVS Procedure Results FEMA P-154 
5.6 Other Possible Uses of the RVS Procedure 

In addition to identifying potentially seismically hazardous buildings needing 

further evaluation, results from RVS surveys can also be used for other 

purposes, including: (1) designing seismic hazard mitigation programs for a 

community (or agency); (2) ranking a community’s (or agency’s) seismic 

rehabilitation needs; (3) developing inventories of buildings for use in 

regional earthquake damage and loss impact assessments; (4) developing 

inventories of buildings for use in planning post earthquake building safety 

evaluation efforts; (5) monitoring buildings for the occurrence of earthquakes 

to improve post-earthquake response (e.g., USGS ShakeCast); and (6) 

developing building-specific seismic vulnerability information for purposes 

such as insurance rating, decision making during building ownership 

transfers, and possible triggering of remodeling requirements during the 

permitting process. 

Following are descriptions of how RVS results could be used for several of 

these purposes. 

5.6.1	 Using RVS Scores as a Basis for Hazardous Building 

Mitigation Programs 

Communities need to develop hazard mitigation plans to establish a solid 

foundation for the detailed seismic evaluation and rehabilitation of buildings. 

In developing any hazardous buildings mitigation program, the cost 

effectiveness of the seismic evaluation and rehabilitation work must be 

determined. The costs should be evaluated against the direct benefits of the 

seismic rehabilitation program (that is, reduced physical damage, reduced 

injuries and loss of life). Additionally, secondary benefits to the community 

should be considered with the direct benefits. These secondary benefits are 

difficult to quantify in dollars, but must be considered. Secondary benefits 

are those that apply to the community as a whole. Examples include: 

	 reduced interruption to business and services; 

	 reduced potential for secondary damage (for example, fires) that could 

impact otherwise undamaged structures; 

	 reduced potential for traffic flow problems around areas of significant 

damage; 

	 increased resiliency and reduced recovery times; and 

	 other reduced economic impacts. 

FEMA P-154	 5: Using the RVS Procedure Results 5-13 
 

The process of selecting buildings to be retrofitted begins with the 

determination of the cut-off Final Score, S, below which a Detailed Structural 

Evaluation is required (e.g., by use of the ASCE/SE1 41-13 procedures). 

Such a determination allows estimates to be made on the costs of additional 

seismic evaluation and rehabilitation work. From this, the benefits are 

determined. The most cost-effective solution will be the one where the least 

amount is spent in direct costs to gain the greatest direct and secondary 

benefits. 

After the RVS Authority establishes the appropriate cut-off score and 

completes the screening process, it needs to determine the best way to notify 

building owners of the need for more review of buildings that score less than 

the cut-off (if the authority is not the owner of the buildings being screened). 

At the same time, the community needs to develop the appropriate standards 

(for example, adoption of ASCE/SEI 41-13) to accomplish the goal of the 

mitigation program. Ultimately, the mitigation program needs to address 

those buildings that represent the largest potential threat to life safety and the 

community. Timelines for compliance with the new standards and the 

mitigation program should be developed on a priority basis, such that the first 

priority actions relate to those buildings posing the most significant risk, after 

which those posing a lesser risk are addressed. 

Finally, every hazardous building mitigation program will be a compromise 

of good intentions. The hard decisions regarding whether to mandate 

compliance, allow for voluntary compliance, or set community goals for 

future compliance may change as the scope of the risk and effects on the 

community become apparent. 

5.6.2	 Using RVS Data in Community Building Inventory 

Development 

Rapid visual screening data can be used to establish building inventories that 

characterize a community’s seismic risk. For example, RVS data could be 

used to improve the HAZUS characterization of the local inventory, which 

has a default level based on population, economic factors, and regional trends 

by importing RVS data for use in the HAZUS Advanced Engineering 

Building Module. Similarly, RVS data could be incorporated directly into a 

community’s GIS, allowing the community to generate electronic and paper 

maps that reflect the building stock of the community. Electronic color 

coding of the various types of buildings under the RVS Authority, based on 

their ultimate vulnerability, allows the community to see at a glance where 

the vulnerable areas of the community are found. This information can then 

inform comprehensive pre-earthquake evaluation and mitigation efforts. 

5-14	 5: Using the RVS Procedure Results FEMA P-154 
 

5.6.3	 Using RVS Data to Plan Postearthquake Building-SafetyEvaluation 

In a postearthquake environment, one of the initial response priorities is to 

determine rapidly the safety of buildings for continued occupancy. The 

procedure most often used is that represented in the ATC-20-1, Field 

Manual: Postearthquake Safety Evaluation of Buildings (ATC, 2005). This 

procedure is similar in nature to that of the RVS procedure in that initial 

rapid evaluations are performed to find those buildings that are obviously 

unsafe (red placard) and those that have no damage or damage that does not 

pose a threat to continued occupancy (green placard). All other buildings fall 

into a condition where occupancy will need to be restricted in some form 

(yellow placard). 

The database developed following the completion of the RVS process in a 

given community will be valuable in setting the priorities of where safety 

evaluation will be performed first, after a damaging earthquake. For 

example, a community could use HAZUS software, in combination with 

RVS-based inventory information, to determine areas where significant 

damage may exist for various earthquake scenarios. Similarly, a building 

department, or large building owner could use RVS data with the USGS 

ShakeCast software to monitor buildings for the occurrence of earthquakes. 

When one occurs and affects the buildings in the inventory, ShakeCast (or 

the special ShakeCast ROVER Edition) can estimate likely ATC-20 tag 

placard colors, which can help prioritize ATC-20 inspections. Or the 

community could use an existing GIS containing RVS inventory data and 

computer-generated maps of strong ground shaking, such as the ShakeMaps 

developed by the USGS, to estimate the location and distribution of damaged 

buildings. With such information, community officials would be able to 

determine those areas where building safety evaluations should be 

conducted. 

Later, the data collected during the postearthquake building safety 

evaluations could be added to the RVS authority’s RVS-based building 

inventory database. Using GIS, maps can then be prepared showing the 

damage distribution within the community based on actual building damage. 

5.6.4	 Resources Needed for the Various Uses of the RVS 

Procedure 

For most applications of the RVS procedure, the resources needed to 

implement the process are similar, consisting principally of an RVS Program 

Manager, a Supervising Engineer, a team of screeners, materials to be taken 

into the field (e.g., the Handbook and other items listed in Section 2.10), and 

FEMA P-154	 5: Using the RVS Procedure Results 5-15 
 

 

 

accumulated building information. See Chapter 2 for descriptions of the 

recommended qualifications of the Program Manager, Supervising Engineer, 

and the screeners. Most applications are assisted by the development and 

maintenance of a computerized database for recordkeeping and the use of 

GIS. 

A matrix showing recommended resources for various FEMA P-154 RVS 

applications is provided in Table 5-1. 

Table 5-1 Matrix of Recommended Personnel and Material Resources for Various FEMA P-154 RVS 

Applications 

Application 

RVS Manager 

and 

Supervising 

Engineer 

Trained 

Screeners 

Screening 

Equipment 

and 

Supplies 

Accumulated 

Building 

Information 

Computerized 

Record 

Keeping 

System GIS 

Ranking seismic rehabilitation 

needs X X 

Designing seismic hazard 

mitigation programs X X X X 

Developing inventories for 

regional earthquake damage and 

loss studies 

X X X X X X 

Planning postearthquake building 

safety evaluation efforts X X X X X X 

Developing building specific 

vulnerability information X X 

5-16 5: Using the RVS Procedure Results FEMA P-154 
 

Chapter 6 

Optional Electronic Scoring 

6.1 Introduction 

The RVS procedure described in Chapter 3 uses a coarse gradation of the 

seismicity by dividing the country into regions of Low, Moderate, 

Moderately High, High, and Very High seismicity. In some areas, these 

coarse gradations may overestimate or underestimate the seismic hazard, 

which in turn affects the building score. This chapter presents an optional 

methodology that provides an approach to more accurately assess the 

seismicity for a site. Electronic scoring methodologies that use smartphones 

or other electronic devices in the field can also reduce the effort and the error 

in transferring data from paper forms to a database, as this information can 

be directly transferred from the device. The Supervising Engineer should 

consider whether the benefits of implementing an electronic scoring 

methodology outweigh the cost of resources needed to develop the 

methodology. 

One existing tool for electronic scoring is the FEMA P-154 Rapid 

Observation of Vulnerability and Estimation of Risk (ROVER) software, as 

discussed in Section 1.8. 

6.2 Changes from and Comparisons with the Paper 

Forms 

The major difference in the scores between the paper form and an electronic 

scoring approach will depend primarily on the difference in seismic hazard at 

a specific site and the median response values that were used to generate the 

Basic Scores and Score Modifiers on the paper forms. In some geographic 

areas, the use of electronic scoring may result in an increase in the building 

score compared to the values provided on the paper RVS forms for the 

applicable region of seismicity; in many areas, however, the building score 

will go down. The use of electronic scoring can make the difference between 

a building having a Final Score below or above the cut-off score. Example 

comparisons are provided in Section 6.5. 

6.3 Concepts in Electronic Scoring 

Chapter 2 defines five seismicity regions: Low, Moderate, Moderately High, 

High, and Very High. The Basic Scores provided on the forms are based on 

FEMA P-154	 6: Optional Electronic Scoring 6-1 
the median response value of seismicity for each of these five regions. Many 

sites will have a seismic hazard that is different than one of the median 

values. For these sites, the difference between the median seismic hazard 

and the site-specific seismic hazard will probably affect the score for a given 

building. A building that passes the rapid visual screening under the 

assumption of the median shaking for the region might not pass when 

accounting for local seismicity (an overlooked life-safety problem). Or the 

reverse might be true: the building does not pass the RVS methodology, but 

it would, if the site-specific hazard was used (an efficiency problem, because 

now a Detailed Structural Evaluation is required). 

The purpose of the electronic scoring methodology is to use site-specific 

seismic hazard data to produce a refined Basic Score. There are many 

sources of data available that can be used to develop site-specific information 

for providing a better estimate of the seismic hazards for a given building, as 

described in the following sections. The geographically referenced data are 

generally publically available. A site’s geolocation can be estimated as 

precisely as ten feet with commonly available Global Positioning System 

(GPS) technology. Site-specific seismic hazards can be accurate within 

perhaps a few hundred feet, using publically available data from the U.S. 

Geological Survey (USGS), whereas the location upon which the median 

hazard is based may be dozens or more miles away. The available sitespecific hazard precision is generally not necessary as part of a rapid visual 

screening, but given the ease with which site-specific soil and hazard can be 

estimated with an electronic system, it seems unnecessary to add location 

error to other uncertainties in the scoring system. 

Optional electronic scoring is not intended as a substitute for more detailed 

building evaluations. Electronic scoring is still considered part of a rapid 

visual screening methodology. As such, the precision of the results should 

be considered to be only moderately more accurate than scores obtained 

using the paper-based forms described in Chapter 3. Where large differences 

occur, it is typically when a site is near the transition from one seismicity 

region to another and thus the assumption of the median seismicity for the 

region is less accurate. 

Electronic scoring can be implemented using various available technologies 

and can be utilized as part of pre-field activities, during the field screening, 

or as part of the post-field activities. Some approaches to implementation are 

described below in Section 6.4. 

6-2 6: Optional Electronic Scoring FEMA P-154 
6.3.1 Site-Specific Seismicity 

As described in Chapter 2, the seismic hazard for the RVS procedure 

corresponds to the risk-targeted Maximum Considered Earthquake (MCER) 

adjusted to account for site amplification at the boundary of VS

30 between 

NEHRP site classes C and D. Site-specific values of seismic hazard can be 

obtained based on the location of the site using either the longitude and 

latitude or the address using tools available from the USGS, e.g., 

http://earthquake.usgs.gov/designmaps/usapp/. 

6.3.2 Soil Type Effects 

Soil conditions at a site will affect the seismic shaking at a site. There are 

various sources of data for determining the soil type at a site, including 

geotechnical engineering reports. As discussed in Chapter 2, VS

30 values can 

also be used to determine soil type. These values can be obtained from the 

U.S. Geological Survey web site or by using a site data viewer application 

distributed by OpenSHA at http://www.opensha.org/apps. 

6.4 How to Implement the Optional Electronic Scoring 

Approach 

Electronic scoring can be implemented in a variety of approaches as part of a 

rapid visual screening program. The method chosen will depend on the 

availability of labor and technology resources. Any electronic scoring 

approach should be implemented with the goal of increasing the efficiency of 

the data collection and improving the accuracy of the results. The 

approaches can vary from development of tables that can be used before, 

during, or after the field screening to specialized hardware and software. 

This document is not intended to provide a detailed description of any 

specific method for implementing electronic scoring. Instead, general 

approaches are described and a basic methodology is presented. 

A pre-field approach to implementing electronic scoring could involve the 

development of tables relating the building Basic Scores to seismicity for a 

given region. The tables would be based on the seismicity of the region 

included in the RVS program and the range of soil conditions that would be 

expected. The tables would provide the Basic Scores and Score Modifiers 

for the site-specific seismicity. Maps or other aids would need to be 

developed to guide the screeners to use the appropriate Basic Score values 

from the tables for each building. The Basic Scores and Score Modifiers 

from the tables would then be used in lieu of the Basic Scores and Score 

Modifiers on the RVS forms, and the calculation of the Final Score would be 

made using the same mathematics as in the RVS forms. The calculation 

FEMA P-154	 6: Optional Electronic Scoring 6-3 
 

could be done manually or with the aid of some form of technology, such as 

a smartphone, tablet, or laptop computer. 

A post-field approach to implementing electronic scoring could involve the 

use of a database or spreadsheet when compiling the RVS screening results. 

With this approach, the RVS forms would be filled out in the field using the 

standard paper forms and then the results would be compiled electronically 

after the field screening. The database, spreadsheet, or other electronic data 

file in which the data are compiled could be programmed to determine the 

site-specific seismicity and soil class for the building based on the longitude 

and latitude. The Basic Score and Score Modifiers determined using the 

paper form during the field screening could then be updated using the 

electronically-calculated score or other means and then the Final Score 

would be re-calculated. 

The implementation of electronic scoring could also be accomplished using a 

methodology that determines the seismic hazard and soil class while at the 

site and then calculates a Basic Score, Score Modifiers, and Final Score 

while at the building. This approach requires the use of an electronic device 

that has been programmed to perform the necessary calculations and 

determine the site location using a GPS device or a service that geolocates 

the building based on its street address. An example of such an approach is 

FEMA P-154 ROVER (FEMA, 2014). Alternative hardware and software 

can also be developed to provide similar functionality as needed. As a 

minimum, the hardware and software needs to be able to locate the site, 

determine the seismic hazard and soil type based on the site’s location, adjust 

the Basic Score and Score Modifiers for the building based on the sitespecific hazards and building height, and sum the applicable Score Modifiers 

to the Basic Score to produce a Final Score. 

6.4.1 General Electronic Scoring Approach 

Any approach chosen for electronic scoring should follow the general steps 

described below. 

1.	 Determine the site-specific risk-targeted Maximum Considered 

Earthquake (MCER) ground motion response acceleration values for Ss 

(5%-damped, spectral response acceleration parameter at short period) 

and S1 (5%-damped spectral response acceleration parameter at a period 

of 1 second). 

2.	 Use Table 6-1 and Table 6-2 to calculate the site coefficients, Fa and Fv, 

for the short-period acceleration and the 1-second period acceleration on 

Soil Type CD. 

6-4	 6: Optional Electronic Scoring FEMA P-154 
FEMA P-154	 6: Optional Electronic Scoring 6-5 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Table 6-1 Site Coefficient Fa 

Mapped Spectral Response Acceleration at Short Period 

Soil Type SS ≤ 0.25 SS = 0.5 SS = 0.75 SS = 1.0 SS ≥ 1.25 

C 1.2 1.2 1.1 1.0 1.0 

CD 1.4 1.3 1.15 1.05 1.0 

D 1.6 1.4 1.2 1.1 1.0 

Table 6-2 Site Coefficient Fv 

Mapped Spectral Response Acceleration at One-Second Period 

Soil Type S1 ≤ 0.1 S1 = 0.2 S1 = 0.3 S1 = 0.4 S1 ≥ 0.5 

C 1.7 1.6 1.5 1.4 1.3 

CD 2.05 1.8 1.65 1.5 1.4 

D 2.4 2.0 1.8 1.6 1.5 

3.	 Calculate the MCER, 5%-damped spectral response acceleration 

parameter at short periods adjusted for Soil Type CD, SMS, and the 

MCER, 5%-damped spectral response acceleration parameter at a period 

of 1 second adjusted for Soil Type CD, SM1, using the following 

equations.

 SMS= Fa × Ss (6-1)

 SM1 = Fv × S1 (6-2) 

4.	 During the field screening, determine if the building is a low-rise (1 to 3 

stories), mid-rise (4 to 7 stories), or high-rise (more than 7 stories). 

5.	 Determine Basic Score and Score Modifiers by interpolating (or 

extrapolating) values of SMS and SM1. Spreadsheet programs and other 

software can perform the interpolation or extrapolation automatically; 

see Chapter 9 of FEMA P-155 (FEMA, 2015) for a more detailed 

discussion. 

6.	 Add the Basic Score determined from Step 5 and the applicable Score 

Modifiers, including the Soil Type Score Modifiers, obtained during the 

field screening to calculate the Final Score for the building. 

It should be noted that the procedure described above provides a score for the 

building that includes the Basic Score and the effects of the site-specific soil 

type. 
 

6.4.2	 Refined Electronic Scoring Approach for Soil Types C 

and D 

The foregoing approach is reasonable for all site conditions, but if the user 

desires additional accuracy for sites whose Soil Type is in the higher half of 

the range of VS

30 for Soil Type C (1850 ft/sec ≤ VS30 < 2500 ft/sec) or in the 

lower half of the range of VS

30 for Soil Type D (600 ft/sec ≤ VS30 < 900 

ft/sec), an alternative approach is offered here. 

1.	 Determine the site-specific risk-targeted Maximum Considered 

Earthquake (MCER) ground motion response acceleration values for Ss 

(5%-damped, spectral response acceleration parameter at short period) 

and S1 (5%-damped spectral response acceleration parameter at a period 

of 1 second). 

2.	 Use Tables 6-1 and 6-2 to calculate the site coefficients, Fa and Fv, for 

the short-period acceleration and the one-second period acceleration on 

Soil Type CD, and for the site’s Soil Type, denoted here by Fa 

*

 and Fv 

*

. 

3.	 Calculate the MCER, 5%-damped spectral response acceleration 

parameter at short periods adjusted for Soil Type CD, SMS, and the 

MCER, 5%-damped spectral response acceleration parameter at a period 

of 1 second adjusted for Soil Type CD, SM1, using Equations 6-1 and 6-2. 

4.	 Calculate the MCER, 5%-damped spectral response acceleration 

parameter at short periods adjusted for site’s Soil Type, SMS*

, and the 

MCER, 5%-damped spectral response acceleration parameter at a period 

of 1 second adjusted for the site’s Soil Type, SM1 *

, using the following 

equations.

 SMS 

* = Fa *

 × SS (6-3)

 SM1 * = Fv

* × S1 (6-4) 

5.	 During the field screening, determine if the building is a low-rise (1 to 3 

stories), mid-rise (4 to 7 stories), or high-rise (more than 7 stories). 

6.	 For low-rise buildings, determine the Basic Score and Score Modifiers 

using the value of SMS

* from Equation 6-3 and an interpolation function 

of Basic Score and Score Modifiers versus SMS. For mid-rise and highrise buildings, determine the Basic Score and Score Modifiers for the 

building using the value of SM1 

* from Equation 6-4 and a look-up table or 

interpolation function of Basic Score and Score Modifiers versus SM1. 

7.	 Add the Basic Score determined from Step 6 and the applicable Score 

Modifiers obtained during the field screening to calculate the Final Score 

for the building. Because this refined approach is only for sites with VS

30 

6-6	 6: Optional Electronic Scoring FEMA P-154 
 

 

 

 

 

in the ranges 1850 ft/sec ≤ VS

30 < 2500 ft/sec (higher-VS30 Soil Type C) or 

600 ft/sec ≤ VS

30 < 900 ft/sec (lower-VS30 Soil Type D), do not apply a 

Score Modifier for Soil Type. 

6.5 Comparisons between Electronic Scoring and PaperBased Scoring 

The use of electronic scoring is expected often to result in higher Final 

Scores for buildings because of the use of site-specific seismic hazard data. 

In some cases the use of electronic scoring will result in lower Final Scores, 

and in some cases the electronic scoring will result in approximately the 

same Final Score. To demonstrate the possible benefit of using electronic 

scoring, RVS Final Scores have been calculated for example buildings using 

both paper forms and the electronic scoring methodology as described above 

(Table 6-3). The buildings are located at the location of the city hall in 

selected cities, representing a variety of seismic hazard locations. The 

examples have assumed that there are no Score Modifiers, such as 

irregularities, that apply. Each of the example buildings is considered to be 

low-rise. 

Table 6-3 Comparison of Final Scores using Electronic and Paper-Based 

Scoring for Soil Type CD 

Building 

Type Seismicity Location 

Paper-Based 

Final Score 

Electronic 

Final Score 

S1 Moderately High Sacramento, CA 2.3 2.4 

S1 High Memphis, TN 2.3 2.2 

S2 Low Boston, MA 3.9 3.8 

S2 Very High Emeryville, CA 1.4 1.6 

C3 High Memphis, TN 1.4 1.3 

C3 Low Boston, MA 3.5 3.4 

RM1 Very High Emeryville, CA 1.1 1.3 

RM1 Moderate New York, NY 2.1 2.3 

URM Moderate New York, NY 1.7 2.0 

URM Moderately High Sacramento, CA 1.2 1.3 

Table 6-3 compares the Final Scores computed using both the forms and the 

electronic scoring methodology for five different building types located in 

six different cities with Soil Type CD, representing ten different city/building 

type combinations. The results show that for six of the ten city/building type 

combinations, the Final Scores increased; for four of the city/building type 

combinations the scores decreased, and none stayed the same. The 

differences are due to the difference between the actual seismicity at the 

cities and the median seismicity for which the Basic Scores were derived and 

the effects of site conditions. 

FEMA P-154	 6: Optional Electronic Scoring 6-7 
The results of these examples should not be generalized to all locations. 

Differences in scores using electronic scoring as compared to the paperbased scoring are dependent on the site-specific seismic hazard values. Prior 

to implementing electronic scoring, the development of the methodology 

used should be overseen by the Supervising Engineer. The Supervising 

Engineer should verify that differences between the paper-based scoring and 

the electronic scoring are appropriate and rational. 

6-8 6: Optional Electronic Scoring FEMA P-154 
Chapter 7 

Example Rapid Visual 

Screening Programs 

7.1 Introduction 

Presented in this chapter are two illustrative examples of rapid visual 

screening programs. In the first scenario, Level 1 screenings are performed 

in the hypothetical community of Anyplace, USA. In the second scenario, 

Level 1 and Level 2 screenings are performed on K-12 school buildings in 

the hypothetical state of Any State, USA. The RVS implementation process 

(as depicted in Figure 2-1) is described, from development of program scope 

to selection of the appropriate Data Collection Form, to the screening of 

individual buildings in the field. 

7.2	 RVS Program Scenario A: Level 1 Screening in 

Anyplace, USA 

The city council of Anyplace, USA tasked the local building department with 

conducting an RVS program to identify all buildings in the city, excluding 

detached single-family and two-family dwellings, that are potentially 

seismically hazardous and that should be further evaluated by a design 

professional experienced in seismic design (the principal purpose of the RVS 

procedure). It was understood that, depending on the results of the RVS 

program, the city council might adopt future ordinances that establish policy 

on when, how, and by whom low-scoring buildings should be evaluated and 

on future seismic rehabilitation requirements. It was desired that the results 

from the RVS program be incorporated in the city’s geographic information 

system (GIS). 

In this scenario, the city council was the RVS Authority. The head of the 

local building department acted as the Program Manager. An experienced 

structural engineer from a local firm was selected to serve as the Supervising 

Engineer. The city council was able to provide a budget of $120,000 for the 

program. 

7.2.1	 Step 1: Defining the Scope of the Program 

The Program Manager determined there are approximately 1,000 buildings in 

the city that are not detached single-family or two-family dwellings and that 

FEMA P-154 7: Example Application of Rapid Visual Screening 7-1 
some of the buildings are at least 100 years old. In order to perform 

screenings of all 1,000 buildings as quickly as possible, and within the given 

budget, Level 2 screenings were not performed as part of this program. The 

Program Manager also decided to focus on the downtown sector of Anyplace 

during the initial phase of the RVS field work, and to expand to the outlying 

areas later. 

The Program Manager tasked the Supervising Engineer with selecting and 

reviewing the Data Collection Form, determining the code and benchmark 

years for the city, and performing quality assurance of the completed forms. 

The Supervising Engineer was tasked with attending the training and being 

available during the field screening to advise the screeners. 

Three building department staff members, as well as 15 architectural and 

engineering undergraduates from the local university, received FEMA P-154 

training and then served as screeners. 

The Program Manager explored possible sources of information about the 

city’s buildings and decided to commit resources to extracting data from the 

city’s existing GIS database, permitting files, Sanborn maps, and any 

available construction drawings. The information gathered from these 

sources during pre-field data acquisition reduced the amount of field time 

required and increased the accuracy of the screenings. 

An electronic database was created for the RVS program. Pre-field data were 

entered into the RVS database and then extracted and placed on Data 

Collection Forms to be used by the screeners in the field. After the field 

screening, the data collected in the field were entered back into the RVS 

database. A building department staff member was tasked with creating the 

database and automating the transfer of the pre-field data onto the Data 

Collection Forms to be printed and used in the field. 

Electronic scoring was not used. 

7.2.2 Step 2: Budget and Cost Estimation 

Costs to conduct the RVS program were estimated per Table 7-1. The entire 

process was scheduled to take 6 months. 

7.2.3 Step 3: Pre-Field Planning 

During the pre-field planning process, the Program Manager confirmed that 

the city’s existing GIS was capable of being expanded to include RVSrelated information and results. A member of the building department’s staff 

extracted street addresses and parcel numbers for most of the properties in 

7-2 7: Example Application of Rapid Visual Screening FEMA P-154 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Table 7-1 RVS Budget for Anyplace, USA 

Task 

Task Description 

Program 

Manager 

$120/hr 

Hours 

Structural 

Engineer 

$150/hr 

Staff 

$60/hr 

Screeners 

(no cost1

) 

Cost 

Task 

Cost 

Select and review Data Collection Form; establish code 

and benchmark years 

40 $6,000 

Create RVS database from GIS database; overlay soils and 

extract soil type for each building

 40 $2,400 

Review and extract building Information from permitting 

files (500 buildings x 30 minutes/building)

 250 $15,000 

Review and extract building information from Sanborn 

maps (200 buildings x 45 minutes/building)

 150 $9,000 

Review and extract Building Information from 

construction documents (100 buildings x 30 

minutes/building)

 50 $3,000 

Create individual Data Collection Forms from the 

database

 40 $2,400 

Training (Program Manager, Supervising Engineer, 3 

Building Dept. Staff, and 15 student volunteers attend 8 

hour training) 

8 8 24 120 $3,600 

Field Screening (Total of Days 1-8 below) 16 40 160 880 $17,520

 Day 1: 5 groups x 6 buildings/group (Project Manager + 

Struc. Eng. + 3 staff each with 3 student volunteers) 

8 8 24 120

 Day 2: 5 groups x 6 buildings/group (Project Manager + 

Struc. Eng. + 3 staff each with 3 student volunteers) 

8 8 24 120

 Day 3: 18 screeners x 10 buildings/screener = 

180 buildings (3 staff + 15 student volunteers) 

4 24 120

 Day 4: 18 screeners x 10 buildings/screener = 

180 buildings (3 staff + 15 student volunteers) 

4 24 120

 Day 5: 18 screeners x 10 buildings/screener = 

180 buildings (3 staff + 15 student volunteers) 

4 24 120

 Day 6: 18 screeners x 10 buildings/screener = 

180 buildings (3 staff + 15 student volunteers) 

4 24 120

 Day 7: 11 screeners x 10 buildings/screener = 

110 buildings (1 staff + 10 student volunteers) 

4 8 80

 Day 8: 11 screeners x 10 buildings/screener = 

110 buildings (1 staff + 10 student volunteers) 

4 8 80 

Quality assurance on completed forms (250 buildings x 

15 minutes/building); quality assurance on compiled data 

20 100 $17,400 

Enter field data into database + verification (1,000 

buildings x 12 minutes/building [2 people, 6 minutes 

each]); photograph and sketch management (1,000 

buildings x 12 minutes/building [once only])

 400 $24,000 

Subtotal Cost $100,320 

Program Management (10% of subtotal) $10,032 

Total Cost $110,352 

1

 Volunteer student screeners are assumed. Alternatively, if screeners are paid at a rate of $60/hr, the total program cost 

increases to $176,352. 

FEMA P-154 7: Example Application of Rapid Visual Screening 7-3 
the city (developed earlier from the tax assessor’s files) from the existing 

GIS and imported them into a standard off-the-shelf electronic database as a 

table. See Figure 7-1 for a screen capture of GIS display showing parcel 

number and other available information for an example site. 

Figure 7-1 Property information at example site in city’s geographic 

information system (FEMA, 2002a). 

To facilitate later use in the GIS, the street addresses were subdivided into 

the following fields: the numeric part of the address; the street prefix (for 

example, “North”); the street name; and the street suffix (for example, 

“Drive”). A zip code field was added, zip codes for each street address were 

obtained using zip code lists available from the U.S. Postal Service, and these 

data were also added to the database. This process yielded 950 street 

addresses, with parcel number and zip code, and established the initial 

information in Anyplace’s electronic “Building RVS Database.” Additional 

fields were added to this new database for RVS-related information such as 

date of construction, number of stories, soil type, FEMA Building Type, and 

RVS score. 

Next, the Supervising Engineer confirmed that sufficient soil information 

was available from the State Geologist to develop an overlay for the GIS 

containing soils information for the entire city. The Supervising Engineer 

concluded that GIS overlays for geologic hazards were not warranted since 

the city included only isolated pockets of low liquefaction potential, and no 

areas with landslide or fault rupture potential. 

7-4	 7: Example Application of Rapid Visual Screening FEMA P-154 
 

7.2.4 Step 4: Selection and Review of the Data Collection Form 

Based on the seismicity maps in Appendix A, Anyplace, USA is located in a 

High seismicity region. The Supervising Engineer elected to also check the 

seismicity of the city using Method 2, as described in Section 2.6.1. The 

longitude and latitude corresponding to the approximate center of the city 

were entered into the USGS website (http://earthquake.usgs.gov 

/designmaps/us/application.php). The design code was set to “2013 ASCE 

41,” the earthquake hazard level was set to “BSE-2N,” and the site soil 

classification was set to “Site Class B - Rock.” Spectral acceleration values 

for 0.2 second, SS, and 1.0 second, S1, for BSE-2N (or MCER) ground 

motions were reported as 1.372g and 0.497g, respectively. Figure 7-2 shows 

the USGS generated summary report for the site. 

Figure 7-2 USGS web page showing SS and S1 values for MCER ground motions 

(USGS, 2013a). 

These values were compared to the criteria in Table 2-2. It was determined 

that the ground motions at the city center meet the “High seismicity” criteria 

for both short-period and long-period motions (that is, 1.372g is greater than 

1.000g and less than 1.500g for the 0.2 second [short-period] motions, and 

0.497g is greater than 0.400g and less than 0.600g for the 1.0 second [longFEMA P-154 7: Example Application of Rapid Visual Screening 7-5 
period] motions). Further, by reviewing ground motions at other locations 

across the city, the Supervising Engineer determined that that the entire city 

is a High seismicity region and that all buildings being surveyed in 

Anyplace’s RVS program should use the Level 1 Data Collection Form for 

High seismicity. 

The Program Manager and the Supervising Engineer downloaded the 

editable versions of the forms from www.atcouncil.org and then reviewed 

them to determine if any changes to the form should be made for the unique 

needs of the program. Since each building in the city was to be identified by 

Parcel Number, they revised the “Other Identifiers” field to “Parcel 

Number.” Since no geologic hazards are present in the city, they decided to 

replace the list of geologic hazards and “Yes/No/DNK” fields with “None.” 

They determined that the occupancy categories on the form were useful for 

their purposes and decided not to change them. The values of the Basic 

Scores and Score Modifiers were not changed. The customized Level 1 Data 

Collection Form for Anyplace, USA is shown in Figure 7-3. 

The Supervising Engineer conferred with the Chief Building Official, the 

department’s plan checkers, and local design professionals to establish key 

seismic code adoption dates for the various FEMA Building Types and for 

anchorage of heavy cladding. It was determined that Anyplace has a history 

of both adopting and enforcing the latest versions of the UBC. The code year 

was therefore set as 1941 for all FEMA Building Types except PC1, for 

which the code year was set as 1973, and URM, for which seismic codes 

were never adopted (after 1933, URMs were no longer permitted to be built). 

Because Anyplace has been consistently adopting the Uniform Building 

Code, benchmark years for all FEMA Building Types, except URM, were 

taken from the “UBC” column in Table 2-3. The year in which seismic 

anchorage requirements for heavy cladding were adopted was determined to 

be 1967. These findings are presented in Table 7-2. 

The Program Manager and the Supervising Engineer decided that 2.0 would 

be an appropriate cut-off score. 

7.2.5 Step 5: Acquisition and Review of Pre-Field Data 

Permitting files, which contained data on buildings constructed or remodeled 

within the last 30 years (including parcel number), were reviewed to obtain 

information on building name (if available), use, building height (height in 

feet and number of stories), total floor area, age (year built), and structural 

system. This process yielded information (from paper file folders) on 

approximately 500 buildings. Fields were added to Anyplace’s Building 

7-6 7: Example Application of Rapid Visual Screening FEMA P-154 
Figure 7-3 Customized Level 1 Data Collection Form for Anyplace, USA. 

FEMA P-154 7: Example Application of Rapid Visual Screening 7-7 
Table 7-2 Customized Quick Reference Guide for Anyplace, USA 

FEMA Building Type 

Year Seismic 

Codes Initially 

Adopted and 

Enforced 

Benchmark Year 

when Codes 

Improved 

W1 Light wood frame single- or multiple-family dwellings 1941 1976 

W1A Light wood frame multi-unit, multi-story residential buildings 

with plan areas on each floor of greater than 3,000 sqft 1941 1997 

W2 Wood frame commercial and industrial buildings > 5,000 sqft 1941 1976 

S1 Steel moment-resisting frame 1941 1994 

S2 Braced steel frame 1941 1997 

S3 Light metal frame 1941 None 

S4 Steel frame with cast-in-place concrete shear walls 1941 1994 

S5 Steel frame with unreinforced masonry infill walls 1941 None 

C1 Concrete moment-resisting frame 1941 1994 

C2 Concrete shear wall 1941 1994 

C3 Concrete frame with unreinforced masonry infill walls 1941 None 

PC1 Tilt-up construction 1973 1997 

PC2 Precast concrete frame 1941 None 

RM1 Reinforced masonry with flexible floor and roof diaphragms 1941 1997 

RM2 Reinforced masonry with rigid floor and roof diaphragms 1941 1994 

URM Unreinforced masonry bearing-wall buildings None None 

MH Manufactured housing 1941 None 

Anchorage of Heavy Cladding 

Year in which seismic anchorage requirements were adopted: 1967 

RVS Database for each of these attributes, and data were added to the 

appropriate records (based on parcel number) in the database; in the case of 

structure type, the entry included an asterisk to denote uncertainty. If an 

address was missing in the database, a new record containing that address 

and related data was added. On average, 30 minutes per building were 

required to extract the correct information from the permitting files and insert 

it into the electronic database. 

The city’s librarian provided copies of available Sanborn maps, which were 

reviewed to identify information on number of stories, year built, building 

size (square footage), building use, and limited information on structural type 

for approximately 200 buildings built prior to 1960. These data were added 

to the appropriate record (based on address) in the Building RVS Database; 

in the case of structure type, the entry included an asterisk to denote 

uncertainty. If an address was missing in the database, a new record 

containing that address and related data was added. For this effort, 45 

7-8 7: Example Application of Rapid Visual Screening FEMA P-154 
 

minutes per building, on average, were required to extract the correct 

information from the Sanborn maps and insert it into the electronic database. 

During the pre-field data collection and review process, the Program 

Manager also obtained an electronic file of soils data (characterized in terms 

of the soil types described in Section 2.8.6) from the State Geologist and 

created an overlay of this information in the city’s GIS system. Points 

defined by the addresses in the GIS reference tables (including newly 

identified addresses added to the references tables as a result of the abovecited efforts) were combined with the soils type overlay, and soil type was 

then assigned to each point (address) by a standard GIS operating procedure. 

The soil type information for each address was then transferred back to the 

database table as a new field for each building’s soil type. 

Based on the above efforts, Anyplace’s Building RVS Database was 

expanded to include approximately 1,000 records with address, parcel 

number, zip code, and soils information, and approximately 700 of these 

records also contained information on building name (if any), use, number of 

stories, total floor area, year built, and structure type. 

7.2.6 Step 6: Review of Construction Documents 

Fortuitously, the city had retained many of the microfilm or pdf copies of 

building construction documents submitted with each permit filing during the 

last 30 years. Copies of these construction documents were available for 100 

buildings. Building department plans examiners reviewed these documents 

to verify, or identify, the FEMA Building Type for each building. Any new 

or revised information on structure type derived as part of this process was 

then inserted in the Building RVS Database, in which case previously 

existing information in this field, along with the associated asterisk denoting 

uncertainty, was removed. On average, this effort required approximately 30 

minutes per plan set, including database corrections. 

7.2.7 Step 7: Training for Screeners 

The screeners for the RVS program included staff from the building 

department and architectural and engineering students from the local 

university. All of these screeners underwent training obtained through 

FEMA’s National Earthquake Technical Assistance Program (NETAP). The 

Program Manager and the Supervising Engineer attended the training as well. 

The training was conducted in a classroom setting and consisted of the 

following: (1) discussions of FEMA Building Types and how they behave 

when subjected to seismic loads; (2) how to use the Level 1 Data Collection 

FEMA P-154 7: Example Application of Rapid Visual Screening 7-9 
Form and the Reference Guides; (3) a review of the Basic Scores and Score 

Modifiers; (4) how to identify building irregularities; (5) what to look for in 

the field; (6) how to account for uncertainty; and (7) an exercise in which 

screeners were shown interior and exterior photographs of buildings and 

asked to identify the FEMA Building Type and vertical and plan 

irregularities. The training class also included focused group interaction 

sessions, principally in relation to the identification of structural systems and 

irregularities using exterior and interior photographs. Screeners were also 

instructed on items to take into the field. 

7.2.8 Step 8: Field Screening of Buildings 

Prior to field screening, a staff member at the building department created an 

individual Data Collection Form for each record in the Building RVS 

Database. All 1,000 Data Collection Forms had street address, parcel 

number, zip code, and soil type information. Approximately 700 of the 

1,000 forms had additional, but not necessarily verified, information, such as 

date of construction and number of stories (see Figure 7-4). 

Figure 7-4 Partially completed Building Identification portion of the Data 

Collection Form for a sample site for use by the screener. 

In those instances where the FEMA Building Type was included in the 

database, this information was noted next to the parcel number, with an 

asterisk if still uncertain. 

Where drawings were reviewed, the drawings reviewed “Yes” box was 

checked. Soil Type and Geologic Hazards sources were noted as State 

Geologist. 

7-10	 7: Example Application of Rapid Visual Screening FEMA P-154 
Field screening of all 1,000 buildings was scheduled to occur over the course 

of eight (nonconsecutive) days. For the first two days, fifteen student 

volunteer screeners worked in five teams, each led by the Program Manager, 

the Supervising Engineer, or one of the three building department staff 

members. Each of these five team leaders was experienced in identifying the 

FEMA Building Type and was able to provide oversight and additional 

training of the student volunteers during these first days. For the following 

six days, the screeners worked individually. The Supervising Engineer 

remained available throughout the field screening to advise and consult. 

The Data Collection Forms, including blank forms for use with buildings not 

yet in the Building RVS Database, were distributed to the RVS screeners 

along with their RVS assignments (on a block-by-block basis). Screeners 

were advised that the information printed on the form from the database 

should be verified in the field, particularly items denoted with an asterisk. 

Prior to field work, each screener was reminded to complete the Data 

Collection Form at each site before moving on to the next site, including 

adding his or her name as the screener and the screening date (in the building 

identification section of the form). 

Following are several examples illustrating rapid visual screening in the field 

and completion of the Data Collection Form. Some examples use forms 

containing relatively complete building identification information, including 

FEMA Building Type, obtained during the pre-field data acquisition and 

review process; others use forms containing less complete building 

identification information; and still others use blank forms completely filled 

in at the site. 

7.2.8.1 Example 1: 3703 Roxbury Street 

Upon arriving at the site, the screener observed the building as a whole 

(Figure 7-5) and began the process of verifying the information in the 

building identification portion of the form (upper right corner), starting with 

the street address. The screener added her name and the date and time of the 

field screening to the building identification portion of the form. 

The FEMA Building Type (S2, steel braced frame) was verified by looking 

at the building with binoculars (see Figure 7-6). The number of stories (10) 

was confirmed by inspection, and the year built noted on the form (1986) 

appeared appropriate. The base dimensions of the building were estimated 

by pacing off the distance along each face, assuming 3 feet per stride, 

resulting in the determination that it was 75 feet by 100 feet in plan. On this 

FEMA P-154 7: Example Application of Rapid Visual Screening 7-11 
basis, the listed square footage of 76,000 square feet was verified as correct. 

No additions to the building were observed. 

Figure 7-5 Exterior view of 3703 Roxbury Street. 

Figure 7-6 Close-up view of 3703 Roxbury Street exterior showing 

perimeter braced steel framing. 

7-12 7: Example Application of Rapid Visual Screening FEMA P-154 
FEMA P-154 7: Example Application of Rapid Visual Screening 7-13 

Sketches of the plan and elevation views of the building were drawn in the 

“Sketch” portion of the form. Several digital photographs were taken of the 

building, to be added to the form later. 

The building use (office) was circled in the “Occupancy” portion of the form. 

No adjacent buildings were observed. 

The next step for the screener was to identify any vertical or plan 

irregularities. The screener consulted the Vertical and Plan Irregularity 

Reference Guides and found that none of the listed irregularities applied to 

the building being screened. 

No falling hazards were observed, as glass cladding is not considered as 

heavy cladding. 

The next step in the process was to circle the appropriate Basic Score and the 

appropriate Score Modifiers. Having verified the FEMA Building Type as 

S2, the screener circled “S2” on the form along with the Basic Score beneath 

it. No irregularities were observed, so none of the irregularity modifiers was 

circled. The screener checked the Quick Reference Guide and found that the 

building did not qualify for the Post-Benchmark modifier. Since the building 

is on Soil Type D, no soil modifiers were applied. The Final Level 1 Score, 

SL1, was determined to be 2.0. 

The screener completed the Extent of Review portion of the form, indicating 

that she viewed the exterior of the building from all sides, but was not able to 

enter the building to inspect the interior. The soil type source and geologic 

hazards source were entered during the pre-field phase. 

The screener noted that no Level 2 screening was performed. She then 

reviewed the Other Hazards portion of the form and did not identify any

other hazards that might trigger a detailed evaluation. Because this score was 

equal to the cut-off score of 2.0, the screener checked the “Yes” box in the 

Detailed Structural Evaluation Required field and “No” in the Detailed 

Nonstructural Evaluation Required field as no nonstructural hazards were 

identified. 

Figure 7-7 shows the completed form for 3703 Roxbury, including the 

photograph that was added digitally at a later date. 

7.2.8.2 Example 2: 3711 Roxbury Street 

Upon arrival at the site, the screener observed the building as a whole (Figure 

7-8). Unlike Example 1, there was little information in the building 
7-14 7: Example Application of Rapid Visual Screening FEMA P-154 

Figure 7-7 Completed Data Collection Form for Example 1, 3703 Roxbury Street.
FEMA P-154 7: Example Application of Rapid Visual Screening 7-15 

Figure 7-8 Exterior view of 3711 Roxbury Street. 

identification portion of the form (only street address, zip code, parcel 

number and soil type were provided). The screener determined the number 

of stories to be 12and the building use to be commercial and office. He 

paced off the building plan dimensions and estimated the plan size as 58 feet 

by 50 feet. Based on this information, the total square footage was estimated 

to be 34,800 square feet (12 stories by 50 feet by 58 feet), and the number of 

stories, use, and square footage were written on the form. Based on a review 

of information in Appendix D of this Handbook, the construction era was 

estimated to be in the 1940s. The screener wrote in the year of construction 

as 1945 and checked the “EST” box to note that the date was estimated. The 

screener circled both “Office” and “Commercial” to indicate the observed 

occupancies. 

The screener noted that an adjacent 11-story building was separated from the 

building being screened by only 12 inches. The screener determined the 

minimum separation gap for pounding per the Level 1 Pounding Guide (1 1/2 

inches per story for 11 stories equals 16.5 inches) and found that the actual 

separation was less than the minimum. In addition, the building being 
screened was at the end of the block. Based on these two conditions, the 

screener checked the “Pounding” box in the Adjacency section of the form. 

The screener consulted the Vertical and Plan Irregularity Reference Guides 

and determined that the four individual towers extending above the base 

represented an out-of-plane offset. The screener noted this severe vertical 

irregularity, 

Sketches of the plan and elevation views of the building were drawn in the 

“Sketch” portion of the form. The cornices at roof level were observed, and 

entered on the form. 

Noting that it was a 12-story building, a review of the material in Table D-6 

(Appendix D), indicated that the likely options for FEMA Building Type 

were S1, S2, S5, C1, C2, or C3. On more careful examination of the building 

exterior with the use of binoculars (see Figure 7-9), it was determined the 

building was Type C3, concrete frame with unreinforced masonry infill, and 

this alpha-numeric code, and accompanying Basic Score, were circled on the 

Data Collection Form. 

Figure 7-9 Close-up view of 3711 Roxbury Street building showing exterior 

infill frame construction. 

Because the four individual towers extending above the base represented a 

vertical irregularity, this modifier was circled. The screener checked the 

Quick Reference Guide and compared the estimated date of construction to 

the pre-code year for FEMA Building Type C3. Since 1945 was after the 

pre-code year of 1941, the screener did not circle the pre-code modifier. 

7-16	 7: Example Application of Rapid Visual Screening FEMA P-154 
 

 

Noting that the soil is Type E, as determined during the pre-field data 

acquisition phase, and that the number of stories was 12, the modifier for Soil 

Type E (> 3 stories) was circled. The total of the Basic Score plus applicable 

Score Modifiers was 1.2 - 0.7 - 0.3 = 0.2. Noting that this is less than the 

minimum score, SMIN = 0.3, the screener indicated that the Final Level 1 

Score, SL1, was 0.3. 

Under Extent of Review, the screener noted that he was not able to view all 

sides of the building by checking the “Partial” box under Exterior. He 

indicated that he was not able to view the interior of the building by checking 

“None” under Interior. 

Under Other Hazards, he noted that pounding potential of the building with 

its neighbor triggers a Detailed Structural Evaluation. 

Because the building’s Final Score was less than the cut-off score of 2.0, and 

because of the other hazards present (pounding), the building required a 

Detailed Structural Evaluation by an experienced seismic design 

professional. Because of the cornices, the building required a Detailed 

Nonstructural Evaluation. A completed version of the form, including 

photographs attached at a later date, is provided in Figure 7-10. 

7.2.8.3 Example 3: 5020 Ebony Drive 

Example 3 was a high-rise residential building (Figure 7-11) in a new part of 

the city in which new development had begun within the last few years. The 

building was not included in the electronic Building RVS Database; 

consequently, there was not a partially prepared Data Collection Form for 

this building. The screeners wrote the address of the building on a blank 

form along with their names and date and time of the screening. 

Based on visual inspection, the screeners determined that the building had 22 

stories above grade, including a tall occupied penthouse story, and 2 

additional stories of parking below grade. They determined that it had no 

additions, estimated that it was designed after 2000, and concluded that its 

use was both commercial (in the first story) and residential in the upper 

stories. The screeners paced off the building plan dimensions to estimate the 

plan size to be approximately 270 feet by 180 feet. Based on this 

information and considering the symmetric but non-rectangular floor plan, 

the total square footage was estimated to be 712,800 square feet. The 

building uses (Commercial and Residential) were circled in the “Occupancy” 

portion. 

The screeners photographed the building and drew a sketch of a portion of 

FEMA P-154 7: Example Application of Rapid Visual Screening 7-17 
Figure 7-10 Completed form for 3711 Roxbury Street. 

7-18 7: Example Application of Rapid Visual Screening FEMA P-154 
Figure 7-11 Exterior view of 5020 Ebony Drive. 

the plan view of the building in the space on the form allocated for a 

“Sketch.” 

The screeners did not know the soil type, but assumed Soil Type D, based on 

the instructions in the Handbook for when soil type is unknown, as well as 

their knowledge that an adjacent site only a quarter mile away was on Soil 

Type D. 

The screeners observed the building’s plan irregularity (reentrant corners) 

and noted it on the form. 

Given the design date of 2000, the anchorage for the heavy cladding on the 

exterior of the building was assumed to have been designed to meet the 

anchorage requirements initially adopted in 1967 (per the information 

provided in the Quick Reference Guide). No other falling hazards were 

observed. 

The window spacing in the upper stories and the column spacing at the first 

floor level indicated the building was either a steel moment frame building, 

or a concrete moment frame building. The screeners attempted to view the 

interior but were not provided with permission to do so. They elected to 

indicate that the building was either an S1 (steel moment-resisting frame) or 

C1 (concrete moment-resisting frame) type on the Data Collection Form and 

circled both types, along with their Basic Scores. 

FEMA P-154 7: Example Application of Rapid Visual Screening 7-19 
 

In addition, the screeners circled the Post-Benchmark Score Modifiers, given 

that the estimated design date (year 2000) occurred after the benchmark years 

for both FEMA Building Type S1 and FEMA Building Type C1 (per the 

information on the Quick Reference Guide), and the Score Modifiers for plan 

irregularity (in both the S1 and C1 columns). 

By adding the circled numbers in both the S1 and C1 columns, scores of 2.7 

and 2.8 were determined for the two FEMA Building Types. Using the lesser 

score of the two, the screener noted the Final Level 1 Score, SL1, as 2.7. 

Because this is greater than the cut-off score of 2.0, a Detailed Structural 

Evaluation of the building by an experienced seismic design professional was 

not required. Before leaving the site, the screeners completed the Extent of 

Review, Other Hazards, and Action Required portions of the form. A 

completed version of the Data Collection Form is provided in Figure 7-12. 

7.2.8.4 Example 4: 1450 Addison Avenue 

The building at 1450 Addison Avenue (see Figure 7-13) is a one-story 

commercial building designed in 1990, per the information provided in the 

building identification portion of the Data Collection Form. By inspection, 

the screeners confirmed the address, number of stories, use (commercial), 

and year built, as shown on the form in Figure 7-14. The screeners paced off 

the building plan dimensions to estimate the plan size (estimated to be 10,125 

square feet), confirming the square footage shown on the identification 

portion of the form. The L-shaped building was drawn on the form, along 

with the dimensions of the various legs. 

The building’s commercial use was circled in the “Occupancy” portion. No 

falling hazards were observed. 

The FEMA Building Type (W2) was circled on the form along with its Basic 

Score. Because the building was L-shaped in plan, the Score Modifier for 

plan irregularity was circled. Based on the age of the building, the PostBenchmark Modifier was circled. 

By adding the column of circled numbers, a Final Level 1 Score of 4.1 was 

determined. Because this score was greater than the cut-off score of 2.0, the 

building did not require a Detailed Structural Evaluation by an experienced 

seismic design professional. A completed version of the form is provided in 

Figure 7-14. 

7.2.9 Step 9: Review by the Supervising Engineer 

The quality assurance process was shortened due to the Supervising 

Engineer’s presence in the field during the screenings. She decided to review 

7-20 7: Example Application of Rapid Visual Screening FEMA P-154 
Figure 7-12 Completed Data Collection form for 5020 Ebony Drive. 

FEMA P-154 7: Example Application of Rapid Visual Screening 7-21 
Figure 7-13 Exterior view of 1450 Addison Avenue. 

any form that included screener comments indicating some uncertainty. She 

also reviewed any form that had more than two FEMA Building Types 

circled. She spot checked 10% of the remaining forms. This resulted in 

approximately 250 reviews of individual forms. 

The Supervising Engineer also reviewed the screening results after they were 

compiled into the RVS database to check for systematic errors. As expected, 

URMs generally received low scores, and new buildings generally received 

passing scores providing confidence that the scores were correctly calculated. 

These results were discussed with the Program Manager. 

7.2.10	 Step 10: Transferring the RVS Field Data to the Electronic 

Building RVS Database 

The last step in the implementation of rapid visual screening for Anyplace, 

USA was transferring the information on the RVS Data Collection Forms 

into the relational electronic Building RVS Database. This required that all 

photos and sketches on the forms be scanned and numbered (for reference 

purposes), and that additional fields (and tables) be added to the database for 

those attributes not originally included in the database. 

For quality control purposes, data were entered separately into two different 

versions of the electronic database, except photographs and sketches, which 

were scanned only once. A double-entry data verification process was then 

used, whereby the data from one database were compared to the same entries 

in the second database to identify those entries that were not exactly the 

7-22	 7: Example Application of Rapid Visual Screening FEMA P-154 
Figure 7-14 Completed Data Collection Form for 1450 Addison Avenue. 

FEMA P-154 7: Example Application of Rapid Visual Screening 7-23 
same. Non-identical entries were examined and corrected as necessary. The 

entire process, including scanning of sketches and photographs, required 

approximately 45 minutes per Data Collection Form. 

After the electronic Building RVS Database was verified, it was imported 

into the city’s GIS, thereby providing Anyplace with a state-of-the-art 

capability to identify and plot building groups based on any set of criteria 

desired by the city’s policy makers. Photographs and sketches of individual 

buildings could also be shown in the GIS simply by clicking on the dot or 

symbol used to represent each building and selecting the desired image. 

7.3	 RVS Program Scenario B: Level 1 and Level 2 

Screenings of K-12 School Buildings in Any State, USA 

The state legislature, who is in this case the RVS Authority, is interested in 

understanding how many of the state’s K-12 school buildings may be 

potentially hazardous in the event of an earthquake. They have partnered 

with the state’s Structural Engineers Association to conduct RVS screenings 

of a sample of K-12 school buildings located throughout the state. A project 

team consisting of two structural engineers, one architect, and four members 

appointed by the State Superintendent has been assembled to plan and 

manage the program. The legislature plans to use the results of the RVS 

screenings to help prepare a preliminary budget for upgrading the schools. 

Since the scope of the program was defined by the legislature, this step is not 

discussed here. 

7.3.1	 Step 1: Budget and Cost Estimation 

The project team has determined that there are approximately 1,000 K-12 

school buildings within the state. Rapid visual screening will be performed 

on a subset of these school buildings to obtain an initial estimate of the 

expected performance of the full building stock. 

For this subset, the team plans to perform the following: (1) create an 

electronic record-keeping system including the capability for electronic 

scoring; (2) determine key seismic code adoption dates throughout the state; 

(3) acquire and review pre-field data from existing files; (4) review available 

building plans prior to field screening; (5) document building location and 

other information on the Data Collection Forms prior to field screening; and 

(6) perform Level 1 and Level 2 screenings including inspection of the 

interiors of buildings whenever possible. 

The team has been granted a budget of $80,000 to perform the screening and 

present the results to the legislature. Based on this allowance, the team has 

7-24	 7: Example Application of Rapid Visual Screening FEMA P-154 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

decided to use eight engineers to screen 100 of the 1000 total school 

buildings in the state. The 100 school buildings are located across the state at 

35 different school sites. Members of the project team are assumed to bill at 

a rate of $150 per hour. The screeners will all be experienced engineers and 

are assumed to bill at a rate of $120 per hour. Administrative tasks will be 

performed by personnel at a rate of $60 per hour. The RVS budget was 

developed and is shown in Table 7-3. 

Table 7-3 RVS Budget for Any State, USA 

Task 

Task Description 

Project 

Team 

$150/hr 

Hours 

Staff 

$60/hr 

Screeners 

$120/hr 

Cost 

Task 

Cost 

Select building subset 10 $1,500 

Create record-keeping system including capability 

for electronic scoring 

40 $6,000 

Determine site-specific seismicity and soil type for 

each building and enter into record-keeping system 

(100 buildings x 10 minutes/building) 

16 $960 

Select and review Data Collection Form; establish 

code and benchmark years 

40 $6,000 

Acquisition and review of pre-field data (100 

buildings x 50 minutes/building) 

20 83 $7,980 

Review construction documents (30 buildings x 30 

minutes/building) 

15 $2,250 

Create individual Data Collection Forms from the 

database and distribute to screeners 

20 $1,200 

Training (two team members and 8 engineers 

attend 8 hour training) 

16 64 $10,080 

Field screening (55 minutes per building x 100 

buildings, assumes Level 1 and Level 2 screenings 

performed with interior of the building typically 

accessed, plus 60 minutes of travel time each way 

to 35 sites) 

162 $19,440 

Quality assurance on completed forms (100 

buildings x 15minutes/building); quality assurance 

on compiled data 

36 $5,400 

Enter field data into database + verification (100 

buildings x 12minutes/building [2 people, 6 

minutes each]); Photograph and sketch 

management (100 buildings x 12 minutes/building 

[once only]) 

40 $2,400 

Calculate electronic scores 8 $1,200 

Prepare of report to State Legislature 40 $6,000 

Subtotal Cost $70,410 

Program management (10% of subtotal) $7,041 

Total Cost $77,451 

FEMA P-154 7: Example Application of Rapid Visual Screening 7-25 
7.3.2 Step 2: Selection of Building Subset 

The project team obtained an existing database of information on the state’s 

schools that had been previously created by the state’s Department of 

Education. For each K-12 school in the state, the survey identified the school 

district, school name, address, grade levels taught, and site number. For most 

of the schools, the individual buildings at the school site were further 

described including the date built and number of stories and, occasionally, 

the building material. 

Using this information and by reviewing photos of the schools from maps 

available on the internet, the project team selected 100 buildings that were 

approximately representative of the full building stock with respect to date 

built, location, FEMA Building Type, and grade level. 

7.3.3 Step 3: Pre-Field Planning 

A record-keeping system was created for the RVS program using an Excel 

spreadsheet. The street address, name, and site number of each of the 100 

schools were entered into the spreadsheet. 

The site-specific hazard values, SS and S1, were determined using the USGS 

tool for each school location based on the school address 

(http://earthquake.usgs.gov/designmaps/usapp). The reported values of 

latitude and longitude and SS and S1 were entered into the spreadsheet for 

each school building. 

Vs

30 maps for the state were downloaded from the USGS website and were 

used to determine the soil type in different parts of the state 

(http://earthquake.usgs.gov/hazards/apps/vs30/). It was observed that the 

majority of the state has Soil Type B or C with some pockets of Soil Type D. 

The map was reviewed for each school building location, and the soil type 

was noted in the spreadsheet. 

An existing state geologic hazards report indicated liquefaction potential 

existed in the westernmost portion of the state. The spreadsheet was updated 

to indicate liquefaction potential for the eight school buildings located within 

this hazard area. 

Electronic scoring was integrated into the spreadsheet, allowing an electronic 

score to be calculated based on the site-specific soil type and seismic hazard 

and building information collected in the field. 

7-26 7: Example Application of Rapid Visual Screening FEMA P-154 
7.3.4 Step 4: Selection and Review of the Data Collection Form 

The spreadsheet included a calculation to determine seismicity region based 

on the site-specific seismic hazard values as determined during the pre-field 

planning step. A column was included in the spreadsheet to document the 

seismicity region at each site based on values of SS and S1 and the criteria in 

Table 2-2. Of the 100 school buildings, 62 were located in High seismicity, 

36 were located in Moderately High seismicity, and 2 were located in 

Moderate seismicity. No schools were located in Very High or Low 

seismicity. 

High, Moderately High, and Moderate seismicity Data Collection Forms 

were downloaded from www.atcouncil.org as pdf files. No modifications to 

the form were deemed necessary. 

Next, the project team determined key seismic code adoption dates. The 

International Building Code (IBC) was adopted statewide in 2001, so 

benchmark years were set using the IBC column of Table 2-3. Prior to this, 

adoption and enforcement of seismic codes varied by local jurisdiction. The 

project team decided to use 1992 as the year that seismic codes were initially 

adopted and enforced. 

Finally, the project team decided to use a cut-off score of 2.0. 

7.3.5 Step 5: Qualifications and Training of Screeners 

The project team selected eight experienced engineers from around the state 

to perform the screenings. The eight engineers, plus two members of the 

project team attended a one-day training session. They learned about the 

FEMA P-154 methodology and learned how to complete the Level 1 and 

Level 2 Data Collection Forms. Using photographs of actual buildings, they 

identified FEMA Building Types and building irregularities. Because of how 

common building additions are in older school buildings, special attention 

was paid during the training to screening buildings with additions. Buildings 

were assigned to screeners based on location to minimize the cost of travel 

time. 

7.3.6 Step 6: Acquisition and Review of Pre-Field Data 

In addition to the database of information that the project team had received 

from the state’s Department of Education, permit files were also obtained at 

the local building departments and reviewed for information on the school 

buildings. From these permit files, the project team extracted information on 

building size, building age, number of stories, and, occasionally, FEMA 

Building Type. 

FEMA P-154 7: Example Application of Rapid Visual Screening 7-27 
Construction drawings were available for approximately a third of the school 

buildings. From these, irregularities could be identified and reviewed for 

severity. 

In one county, schools had previously been screened using the second edition 

of FEMA 154. The completed Second Edition forms were used for 

additional information. 

All of the information obtained during the pre-field data collection process 

was entered into the record-keeping spreadsheet. A routine was developed to 

automate the transfer of data from the spreadsheet into a pdf for each school 

building. Soil Type and Geologic Hazards were noted on the Data Collection 

Forms under the Extent of Review field. 

7.3.7 Step 7: Field Screening of Buildings 

Each building was assigned to a screener located nearest the building. The 

pre-filled forms were provided to the assigned screener. Each screener had 

three weeks to complete their assigned screenings and send the completed 

Data Collection Forms back to the project team. 

Following are several examples illustrating rapid visual screening in the field 

and completion of the Level 1 and Level 2 Data Collection Forms. All of the 

examples are located in High seismicity. Some examples use forms 

containing relatively complete building identification information, including 

FEMA Building Type, obtained during the pre-field data acquisition and 

review process, while others use forms containing less complete building 

identification information. 

7.3.7.1	 Example 1: Main Building at Roosevelt Elementary 

School 

The screener performed Level 1 and Level 2 screenings of the main 

classroom building at Roosevelt Elementary School (shown in Figure 7-15) 

using the provided Data Collection Form, which included pre-field 

information, such as address, number of stories, year built, and soils 

information. 

The screener verified the pre-field information. She checked Soil Type D 

and indicated liquefaction potential, based on the pre-filled information in the 

“Extent of Review” portion of the form. 

After walking around the building and through the interior of the building, 

she identified the building as a FEMA Building Type RM2 (reinforced 

masonry building with rigid floor and roof diaphragms) and sketched the 

7-28	 7: Example Application of Rapid Visual Screening FEMA P-154 
Figure 7-15 Exterior view of modern reinforced brick masonry building at 

Roosevelt Elementary School. 

plan of the building. All of the interior walls were finished, but she was able 

to identify which walls were structural versus nonstructural by tapping on 

them. Those walls that sounded solid were deemed structural, and those that 

sounded hollow were deemed nonstructural. She added this information to 

the sketch. 

Using the Vertical Irregularity Reference Guide, she identified the building 

as having a short column irregularity due to the presence of infill walls at the 

first floor that effectively shortened the length of the columns. Because the 

east-west walls were all concentrated at the center of the building, the 

screener identified the building as torsionally irregular. Considering the plan 

and vertical irregularities, the screener calculated a score of 0.1, but used SMIN 

to set the Level 1 Final Score at 0.3. 

The screener completed the Level 2 portion of the form, reviewing each of 

the Level 2 statements, and the nonstructural portion of the Level 2 form. 

The Level 2 Final Score, which included a more modest penalty for short 

columns and a positive modifier for redundancy, was calculated as +0.8. 

This score was transferred back onto the Level 1 form. 

Under “Other Hazards,” the screener checked the “Geologic Hazards or Soil 

Type F” box to acknowledge that liquefaction potential at the site is a trigger 

for a Detailed Structural Evaluation. Under “Action Required,” the screener 

checked both “Yes, score less than cut-off” and “Yes, other hazards present” 

(because of the liquefaction potential). No exterior falling hazards were 

observed in either the Level 1 or the Level 2 screening. 

The completed Level 1 Data Collection Form for the main classroom 

building is shown in Figure 7-16. The completed Level 2 Data Collection 

Form is shown in Figure 7-17. Additional buildings on site, including an 

auditorium structure and a cafeteria building, were screened separately. 

FEMA P-154 7: Example Application of Rapid Visual Screening 7-29 
Figure 7-16 Completed Level 1 Data Collection Form for the main building at Roosevelt Elementary School. 

7-30 7: Example Application of Rapid Visual Screening FEMA P-154 
Figure 7-17 Completed Level 2 Data Collection Form for the main building at Roosevelt Elementary School. 

FEMA P-154 7: Example Application of Rapid Visual Screening 7-31 
7.3.7.2	 Example 2: Main Building plus Addition at 

Washington Middle School 

The screener performed Level 1 and Level 2 screenings of the main 

classroom building at Washington Middle School (shown in Figure 7-18) 

using the provided High seismicity Data Collection Form which included 

pre-field information such as address, number of stories, year built, and soils 

information. It also indicated that an addition was built in 1994. 

Figure 7-18 Photo of exterior of Washington Middle School (from 

www.fema.gov). 

The screener verified the pre-field information. He checked Soil Type C and 

indicated that no geologic hazards were present, based on the pre-filled 

information in the “Extent of Review” portion of the form. 

After walking around the building and through the interior of the building, he 

identified the original building as a C2 (concrete shear wall). He confirmed 

that the walls were concrete and not stucco over metal or wood framing by 

knocking on the walls and verifying that they were solid. He observed steel 

braces at the addition and concluded that it was an S2 (steel braced frame). 

He sketched a plan of the building, including the addition, and an elevation. 

He calculated the area of the building and found that the area provided on the 

form did not appear to include the area of the addition. He crossed out the 

provided area and wrote in a revised value. 

The screener consulted the Level 1 Building Additions Reference Guide, 

which indicated that because the addition and the original building had 

different structural framing, they should be evaluated separately and 

7-32	 7: Example Application of Rapid Visual Screening FEMA P-154 
pounding should be considered. He checked pounding using the Level 1 

Pounding Reference Guide and found that pounding potential does exist 

because the roof of the addition does not align with the floor of the original 

building. While he could have used a separate form for the addition, he opted 

to use a single Level 1 form for both portions of the building. He calculated a 

Level 1 score for the original building, and a second Level 1 score for the 

addition. The screener did not observe any of the irregularities listed in the 

Vertical Irregularity Reference Guide in the main building. Because the 

addition has braced frames on only three sides, the screener identified the 

addition as torsionally irregular using the Plan Irregularity Reference Guide. 

Considering the original building is pre-code, the screener calculated the 

Level 1 Score for the original building as 1.3. Considering the plan 

irregularity and the soil type, the screener calculated the Level 1 Score for 

the addition as 1.3. 

Prior to performing the Level 2 portion of the form, the screener consulted 

the Level 2 Building Additions Reference Guide. Based on the Level 2 

guide, the screener treated the original plus addition as a single building. He 

applied (1) the reentrant corner modifier to account for the difference in the 

plan dimension between the original and the addition; (2) the setback 

modifier to account for the difference in height; and (3) the torsional 

irregularity modifier to account for the difference in structural systems. He 

also applied modifiers for split level (because the roof of the addition does 

not align with any of the original floor levels) and redundancy (because there 

are multiple bays of lateral elements in both directions on both sides of the 

building. He made sure to apply the appropriate caps to VL2 and PL2 as 

instructed on the Level 2 form. The Level 2 score was calculated as -0.3, so 

SMIN (for the original building) was used as the Final Level 2 Score, SL2 = 0.3. 

This score was transferred back onto the Level 1 form. 

No exterior falling hazards were observed in the Level 1 screening. During 

the Level 2 screening, however, the screener observed what appeared to be 

hollow clay tile partitions. He noted this on the Level 2 form. 

The completed Level 1 Data Collection Form for the building is shown in 

Figure 7-19. The completed Level 2 Data Collection Form is shown in 

Figure 7-20. Additional buildings on site were screened separately. 

FEMA P-154 7: Example Application of Rapid Visual Screening 7-33 
7-34 7: Example Application of Rapid Visual Screening FEMA P-154 

Figure 7-19 Completed Level 1 Data Collection Form for the main building (original plus addition) at 

Washington Middle School. 
FEMA P-154 7: Example Application of Rapid Visual Screening 7-35 

Figure 7-20 Completed Level 2 Data Collection Form for the main building (original plus addition) at 

Washington Middle School. 
7.3.7.3	 Example 3: Portable Classrooms at New City High 

School 

While screening the main building and auditorium at New City High School, 

the screener noted a group of portable buildings being used as temporary 

classrooms. The screener decided to perform Level 1 and Level 2 screenings 

of these buildings using a blank Data Collection Form. He extracted soil 

type information and geologic hazards from the pre-filled Data Collection 

Form for the main building. 

Figure 7-21	 Exterior view portable classrooms at New City High School 

(from www.fema.gov). 

The screener counted two rows of five portables, all of apparently identical 

size, use, and construction. Because of their uniformity, the screener opted 

to complete only one Data Collection Form for all ten of the buildings. 

The screener was able to speak directly to the facilities manager of the high 

school, who recalled that the portables had been installed in 2006 with 

seismic bracing systems. The screener noted this information in the 

comments section of the form and included in the name of the facilities 

manager on the contact portion of the form. The screener attempted to 

confirm the existence of the bracing by looking under the portables, but all of 

the portables had continuous skirts that blocked his view. 

Using FEMA Building Type MH (manufactured housing), the screener 

calculated a Level 1 Final Score of 1.8. He then completed the Level 2 

portion of the form, which provides a positive modifier for MH buildings 

7-36	 7: Example Application of Rapid Visual Screening FEMA P-154 
 

 

with seismic bracing systems. The resulting Level 2 Final Score was 3.0. 

Based on the Level 2 score, the screener indicated that additional detailed 

structural evaluation of the portables was not required. He reviewed each 

portable for potential falling hazards, but none were observed. 

The completed Level 1 and Level 2 Data Collection Forms are shown in 

Figure 7-22 and 7-23, respectively. 

7.3.8 Step 8: Review by the Supervising Engineer 

Following the completion of the field screening, the screeners scanned their 

completed forms and any additional notes or sketches. These scans, along 

with photographs of the buildings, were transmitted to the Supervising 

Engineers. The two engineers on the project team reviewed the forms, 

comparing the photographs and sketches to the building characteristics noted 

(such as number of stories, irregularities, and FEMA Building Type), at 

times correcting inconsistencies. The score calculations were doublechecked with particular emphasis on reviewing that the proper Basic Score 

and Score Modifiers were applied and that the transfer of the Level 2 score to 

the Level 1 form was correct. Notes from screeners were carefully reviewed, 

particularly where the note indicated the screener’s uncertainty. If a screener 

indicated uncertainty (such as building age or whether an observed condition 

qualified as an irregularity), the Supervising Engineers reviewed the photos 

and the sketches to make a determination. Finally, the Supervising Engineer 

checked that no “Other Hazards” were overlooked in determining whether to 

require a Detailed Structural Evaluation. In a few cases, the Supervising 

Engineer performed a follow-up screening to verify building age and FEMA 

Building Type. 

When the reviewers were satisfied with the completed forms, the data 

recorded on the paper forms were entered into the record-keeping 

spreadsheet. Photographs, sketches, and additional pages of notes were 

scanned and saved to a file folder. 

Electronic scores were calculated within the spreadsheet using the 

automation that had previously been developed. 

7.3.9 Step 9: Report to State Legislature 

The project team discussed the RVS results looking for patterns and 

inconsistencies. They presented the results in a report to the State 

Legislature. The report summarized methodology and criteria used in the 

screening program, and gave findings and conclusions, including scoring 

results and trends. 

FEMA P-154 7: Example Application of Rapid Visual Screening 7-37 
Figure 7-22 Completed Level 1 Data Collection Form for portable classrooms at New City High School. 

7-38 7: Example Application of Rapid Visual Screening FEMA P-154 
Figure 7-23 Completed Level 2 Data Collection Form for portable classrooms at New City High School. 

FEMA P-154 7: Example Application of Rapid Visual Screening 7-39 
1

0

00

10

yy

yyxx

xx

 -



7.3.10	 Example Level 1 and Level 2 Screening Using Electronic 

Scoring 

As an alternative to the use of paper-based scoring, the school buildings were 

also evaluated using electronic scoring. During the pre-field planning stage, 

site-specific seismic hazard values, Ss and S1, were determined for each 

school site from the USGS online tool available at http://earthquake.usgs.gov 

/designmaps/usapp/.. Although all of the examples described below are 

located in High seismicity regions, the site-specific seismicity varies from 

site to site, resulting in variations in the difference between the paper-based 

score and the electronic score. 

7.3.10.1 Example 1: Roosevelt Elementary School 

The site-specific seismic hazard values, Ss and S1, for Roosevelt Elementary 

School were determined to be 1.48g and 0.39g, respectively. The school is a 

two-story RM2 located on Soil Type D with Severe Vertical and Plan 

irregularities. Electronic scores for the school are calculated below using the 

guidance presented in Chapter 9 of FEMA P-155 (FEMA, 2015): 

1.	 Building height, H = 2 stories x 12’/story = 24’ 

2.	 Building period, T = 0.025 x H0.75 = 0.27sec 

3.	 SS/S1 = 1.48g/0.39g = 3.79 > T; therefore, interpolate using SS (adjusted 

for Soil Type CD). Linear interpolation will be used FEMA P-155 

Chapter 9 discusses other types of interpolation that could be used. 

4.	 Adjust SS for Soil Type CD: SS = 1.48g > 1.25g, therefore, Fa = 1.0. 

5.	 Fa × SS = 1.0 × 1.48g = 1.48g (This is between High, Fa × SS = 1.21g 

with Basic Score for RM2 = 1.7, and Very High, Fa × SS = 2.25g with 

Basic Score for RM2 = 1.1.) 

6.	 Electronic Basic Score is calculated with the following linear 

interpolation formula from Chapter 9 of FEMA P-155: 

 =

+ -

  -

y = 1.1 + (1.48 - 2.25) × (1.7 - 1.1) / (1.21 - 2.25) = 1.54 

7.	 Similarly, the applicable electronic Level 1 modifiers are calculated as ­

0.85 (Severe Vertical Irregularity), -0.62 (Plan Irregularity), and 0.3 

(Minimum Score). 

8.	 Electronic Level 1 Score = 1.54 - 0.85 - 0.62 = 0.07 < SMIN = 0.3; Use SL1 

= 0.3. 

7-40	 7: Example Application of Rapid Visual Screening FEMA P-154 
9.	 The applicable electronic Level 2 modifiers are calculated as -0.47 (Short 

Column/Pier), -0.65 (Torsional Irregularity), and 0.27 (Redundancy). 

10. Electronic Level 2 Score = 1.54 - 0.47 - 0.65 + 0.27 = 0.69 > SMIN. 

7.3.10.2 Example 2: Washington Middle School 

The site-specific seismic hazard values, Ss and S1, for Washington Middle 

School were determined to be 1.21g and 0.54g, respectively. This is close to 

the median values used in High seismicity. The main portion of the building 

is a three-story C2, while the addition is a one-story S2. The school is located 

on Soil Type C. 

The Basic Score for Building Type C2 using electronic scoring and 

considering the above site-specific seismicity is 1.99, and the Pre-Code Score 

Modifier is -0.70. The resulting electronic Level 1 Score is 1.30. The Basic 

Score for Building Type S2 using electronic scoring and considering the sitespecific seismicity is also 1.99, and the Plan Irregularity Score Modifier is ­

0.70. The resulting electronic Level 1 Score for the addition is 1.30. This is 

equal to the score for the main portion of the building. Hence, the Final Level 

2 Score using electronic scoring is 1.30. 

The Final Level 2 Score using electronic scoring considers the pre-code C2 

building with irregularities due to the addition. Redundancy is also 

considered. The Final Level 2 Score is 1.99 (Basic Score) - 0.70 (Pre-Code) 

-0.50 (Vertical Setback) - 0.50 (Split Level) - 0.70 (Torsion) - 0.4 (Reentrant) 

+ 0.30 (Redundancy) = -0.51. This is less than the minimum score, hence, 

the Final Level 2 Score is taken as 0.30. 

7.3.10.3 Example 3: New City High School 

The site-specific seismic hazard values, Ss and S1, for New City High School 

were determined to be 1.05g and 0.36g, respectively. This indicates a lower 

seismicity than at Roosevelt Elementary School or Washington Middle 

School sites even though all are in High seismicity. The building is a onestory MH located on Soil Type B. 

The Basic Score for Building Type MH using electronic scoring and 

considering Soil Type CD is 1.67. The Soil Type B Score Modifier is -0.42. 

The Final Level 1 Score using electronic scoring is 1.67 + 0.45 = 2.12. 

The Final Level 2 Score is 2.12 (Basic Score plus Soil Type B) + 1.20 

(Supplemental Seismic Bracing) = 3.32. 

The Final Level 1 and Level 2 paper-based and electronic scores are 

summarized in Table 7-4. Where site-specific seismicity is similar to the 

FEMA P-154 7: Example Application of Rapid Visual Screening 7-41 
 

median seismicity of the region, such as for Washington Middle School, the 

electronic scores will be similar to the paper-based scores. Where sitespecific seismicity is greater than the median seismicity of the region, such as 

for Roosevelt Elementary School, the electronic scores will be smaller than 

the paper-based scores. Finally, where site-specific seismicity is less than the 

median seismicity of the region, such as for New City High School, the 

electronic scores will be greater than the paper-based scores. 

Table 7-4 Summary of Paper-Based and Electronic Scores 

School 

Paper-Based Score 

Level 1 Score Level 2 Score 

Electronic Score 

Level 1 Score Level 2 Score 

Roosevelt 

Elementary 

School 

0.3 0.8 0.3 0.7 

Washington 

Middle School 1.3 0.3 1.3 0.3 

New City High 

School 1.5 2.7 2.1 3.3 

7-42 7: Example Application of Rapid Visual Screening FEMA P-154 
 

 

 

Appendix A 

Maps Showing Seismicity 

Regions 

This appendix provides seismicity region designations of Low, Moderate, 

Moderately High, High, and Very High for all counties in the United States, 

based on an assumed Soil Type B throughout the county. The seismicity 

designation is based on the site-specific values of seismic hazard at a point in 

the county considering risk-targeted Maximum Considered Earthquake 

(MCER) ground motions. The determination is based on criteria set in Table 

2-2 and repeated here as Table A-1. The designation at any county is based 

on the highest seismicity expected at any location in the county. A more 

accurate determination of the seismicity of a specific site can be made using 

the site-specific procedure described in Chapter 2. 

Table A-1 Seismicity Region Determination from MCER Spectral 

Acceleration Response (from ASCE/SEI 41-13) 

Seismicity Region 

Spectral Acceleration 

Response, SS (short-period, or 

0.2 seconds) 

Spectral Acceleration 

Response, S1 (long-period, 

or 1.0 second) 

Low less than 0.250g less than 0.100g 

Moderate greater than or equal to 0.250g 

but less than 0.500g 

greater than or equal to 

0.100g but less than 0.200g 

Moderately High greater than or equal to 0.500g 

but less than 1.000g 

greater than or equal to 

0.200g but less than 0.400g 

High greater than or equal to 1.000g 

but less than 1.500g 

greater than or equal to 

0.400g but less than 0.600g 

Very High greater than or equal to 1.500g greater than or equal to 

0.600g 

Notes: g = acceleration of gravity in horizontal direction 

The maps have been developed by the U.S. Geological Survey. Figure A-1 

provides a map of the seismicity regions in the entire United States. The 

following maps in Figure A-2 through Figure A-11 present seismicity 

regions in different geographical regions of the United States and its 

territories. 

FEMA P-154 A: Maps Showing Seismicity Regions A-1 
Figure A-1 Very High, High, Moderately High, Moderate, and Low seismicity regions in the 

United States. A different RVS Data Collection Form has been developed for each of 

these regions. 

A-2	 A: Maps Showing Seismicity Regions FEMA P-154 
 

Figure A-2 Seismicity regions in California, Idaho, Nevada, Oregon, and Washington. 

FEMA P-154 A: Maps Showing Seismicity Regions A-3 
Figure A-3 Seismicity regions in Arizona, Montana, Utah, and Wyoming. 

A-4 A: Maps Showing Seismicity Regions FEMA P-154 
 

Figure A-4 Seismicity regions in Colorado, Kansas, New Mexico, Oklahoma, and Texas. 

FEMA P-154 A: Maps Showing Seismicity Regions A-5 
Figure A-5 Seismicity regions in Iowa, Michigan, Nebraska, North Dakota, Minnesota, South Dakota, 

and Wisconsin. 

A-6 A: Maps Showing Seismicity Regions FEMA P-154 
 

Figure A-6 Seismicity regions in Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky, Missouri, and Ohio. 

FEMA P-154 A: Maps Showing Seismicity Regions A-7 
Figure A-7 Seismicity regions in Alabama, Arkansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, and Tennessee. 

A-8 A: Maps Showing Seismicity Regions FEMA P-154 
 

Figure A-8 Seismicity regions in Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New York, 

Rhode Island, and Vermont. 

FEMA P-154 A: Maps Showing Seismicity Regions A-9 
Figure A-9 Seismicity regions in Delaware, Maryland, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Virginia, and West 

Virginia. 

A-10 A: Maps Showing Seismicity Regions FEMA P-154 
 

Figure A-10 Seismicity regions in Georgia, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Florida. 

FEMA P-154 A: Maps Showing Seismicity Regions A-11 
(a) 

(b) 

Figure A-11 Seismicity regions in (a) Alaska and (b) Hawaii. 

A-12 A: Maps Showing Seismicity Regions FEMA P-154 
 

Figure A-12 Seismicity regions in U.S. Territories. 

FEMA P-154 A: Maps Showing Seismicity Regions A-13 

Appendix B 

Data Collection Forms and 

Reference Guides 

B.1	 Level 1 and Level 2 Forms for Very High, High, Moderately High, Moderate, 

and Low Seismicity 

Electronic versions of these forms are also available for download at www.atcouncil.org. 

FEMA P-154 B: Data Collection Forms and Reference Guides B-1 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Rapid Visual Screening of Buildings for Potential Seismic Hazards Level 1
 

FEMA P-154 Data Collection Form VERY HIGH Seismicity
 

Legend: MRF = Moment-resisting frame RC = Reinforced concrete URM INF = Unreinforced masonry infill MH = Manufactured Housing FD = Flexible diaphragm 

PHOTOGRAPH 

Address: 

Zip: 

Other Identifiers: 

Building Name: 

Use: 

Latitude: Longitude: 

SS: S1: 

Screener(s): Date/Time: 

No. Stories: Above Grade: Below Grade: Year Built: EST 

Total Floor Area (sq. ft.): Code Year: 

Additions: None Yes, Year(s) Built: 

Occupancy: Assembly Commercial Emer. Services Historic Shelter 

Industrial Office School Government 

Utility Warehouse Residential, # Units: 

Soil Type: A 

Hard 

Rock 

B 

Avg 

Rock 

C 

Dense 

Soil 

D 

Stiff 

Soil 

E 

Soft 

Soil 

F 

Poor 

Soil 

DNK 

If DNK, assume Type D. 

Geologic Hazards: Liquefaction: Yes/No/DNK Landslide: Yes/No/DNK Surf. Rupt.: Yes/No/DNK 

Adjacency: Pounding Falling Hazards from Taller Adjacent Building 

Irregularities: Vertical (type/severity) 

 Plan (type) 

Exterior Falling

Hazards:

 Unbraced Chimneys Heavy Cladding or Heavy Veneer

 Parapets Appendages

 Other: _______________________________________________ 

COMMENTS: 

SKETCH Additional sketches or comments on separate page 

BASIC SCORE, MODIFIERS, AND FINAL LEVEL 1 SCORE, SL1 

FEMA BUILDING TYPE Do Not 

Know 

W1 W1A W2 S1 

(MRF) 

S2 

(BR) 

S3 

(LM) 

S4 

(RC 

SW) 

S5 

(URM 

INF) 

C1 

(MRF) 

C2 

(SW) 

C3 

(URM 

INF) 

PC1 

(TU) 

PC2 RM1 

(FD) 

RM2 

(RD) 

URM MH 

Basic Score 

Severe Vertical Irregularity, VL1 

Moderate Vertical Irregularity, VL1 

Plan Irregularity, PL1 

Pre-Code 

Post-Benchmark 

Soil Type A or B 

Soil Type E (1-3 stories) 

Soil Type E (> 3 stories) 

2.1 

-0.9 

-0.6 

-0.7 

-0.3 

1.9 

0.5 

0.0 

-0.4 

1.9 

-0.9 

-0.5 

-0.7 

-0.3 

1.9 

0.5 

-0.2 

-0.4 

1.8 

-0.9 

-0.5 

-0.6 

-0.3 

2.0 

0.4 

-0.4 

-0.4 

1.5 

-0.8 

-0.4 

-0.5 

-0.3 

1.0 

0.3 

-0.3 

-0.3 

1.4 

-0.7 

-0.4 

-0.5 

-0.2 

1.1 

0.3 

-0.2 

-0.3 

1.6 

-0.8 

-0.5 

-0.6 

-0.3 

1.1 

0.4 

-0.2 

NA 

1.4 

-0.7 

-0.4 

-0.4 

-0.2 

1.5 

0.3 

-0.2 

-0.3 

1.2 

-0.7 

-0.3 

-0.4 

-0.1 

NA 

0.2 

-0.1 

-0.1 

1.0 

-0.7 

-0.4 

-0.4 

-0.1 

1.4 

0.2 

-0.1 

-0.1 

1.2 

-0.8 

-0.4 

-0.5 

-0.2 

1.7 

0.3 

-0.2 

-0.3 

0.9 

-0.6 

-0.3 

-0.3 

0.0 

NA 

0.1 

0.0 

-0.1 

1.1 

-0.7 

-0.4 

-0.5 

-0.2 

1.5 

0.3 

-0.2 

NA

1.0 

-0.7 

-0.4 

-0.4 

-0.1 

1.7 

0.2 

-0.1 

-0.1 

1.1 

-0.7 

-0.4 

-0.4 

-0.2 

1.6 

0.3 

-0.2 

-0.2 

1.1 

-0.7 

-0.4 

-0.4 

-0.2 

1.6 

0.3 

-0.2 

-0.2 

0.9 

-0.6 

-0.3 

-0.3 

0.0 

NA 

0.1 

0.0 

0.0 

1.1 

NA 

NA 

NA 

0.0 

0.5 

0.1 

-0.1 

NA 

Minimum Score, SMIN 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.2 1.0 

FINAL LEVEL 1 SCORE, SL1 ≥ SMIN: 

EXTENT OF REVIEW 

Exterior: Partial All Sides Aerial 

Interior: None Visible Entered 

Drawings Reviewed: Yes No 

Soil Type Source: 

Geologic Hazards Source: 

Contact Person: 

OTHER HAZARDS 

Are There Hazards That Trigger A 

Detailed Structural Evaluation? 

 Pounding potential (unless SL2 > 

cut-off, if known)

 Falling hazards from taller adjacent 

building 

Geologic hazards or Soil Type F

 Significant damage/deterioration to 

the structural system 

ACTION REQUIRED 

Detailed Structural Evaluation Required?

 Yes, unknown FEMA building type or other building 

 Yes, score less than cut-off 

 Yes, other hazards present

 No 

Detailed Nonstructural Evaluation Recommended? (check one)

 Yes, nonstructural hazards identified that should be evaluated 

 No, nonstructural hazards exist that may require mitigation, but a 

detailed evaluation is not necessary 

 No, no nonstructural hazards identified DNK 

LEVEL 2 SCREENING PERFORMED? 

 Yes, Final Level 2 Score, SL2 No 

Nonstructural hazards? Yes No 

Where information cannot be verified, screener shall note the following: EST = Estimated or unreliable data OR DNK = Do Not Know 

BR = Braced frame SW = Shear wall TU = Tilt up LM = Light metal RD = Rigid diaphragm 
 

 

 

 

  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Rapid Visual Screening of Buildings for Potential Seismic Hazards Level 2 (Optional)
 

FEMA P-154 Data Collection Form VERY HIGH Seismicity
 Optional Level 2 data collection to be performed by a civil or structural engineering professional, architect, or graduate student with background in seismic evaluation or design of buildings. 

Bldg Name: Final Level 1 Score: SL1 = (do not consider SMIN) 

Screener: Level 1 Irregularity Modifiers: Vertical Irregularity, VL1 = Plan Irregularity, PL1 = 

Date/Time: ADJUSTED BASELINE SCORE: S’ = (SL1 – VL1 – PL1) = 

STRUCTURAL MODIFIERS TO ADD TO ADJUSTED BASELINE SCORE 

Topic Statement (If statement is true, circle the “Yes” modifier; otherwise cross out the modifier.) Yes Subtotals 

Vertical 

Irregularity, VL2 

Sloping 

Site 

W1 building: There is at least a full story grade change from one side of the building to the other. -0.9 

VL2 = _______ 

(Cap at  ‐0.9)

Non-W1 building: There is at least a full story grade change from one side of the building to the other. -0.2 

Weak 

and/or 

Soft Story 

(circle one 

maximum) 

W1 building cripple wall: An unbraced cripple wall is visible in the crawl space. -0.5 

W1 house over garage: Underneath an occupied story, there is a garage opening without a steel moment frame, 

and there is less than 8' of wall on the same line (for multiple occupied floors above, use 16' of wall minimum). -0.9 

W1A building open front: There are openings at the ground story (such as for parking) over at least 50% of the 

length of the building. -0.9 

Non-W1 building: Length of lateral system at any story is less than 50% of that at story above or height of any 

story is more than 2.0 times the height of the story above. -0.7 

Non-W1 building: Length of lateral system at any story is between 50% and 75% of that at story above or height 

of any story is between 1.3 and 2.0 times the height of the story above. -0.4 

Setback Vertical elements of the lateral system at an upper story are outboard of those at the story below causing the 

diaphragm to cantilever at the offset. -0.7 

Vertical elements of the lateral system at upper stories are inboard of those at lower stories. -0.4 

There is an in-plane offset of the lateral elements that is greater than the length of the elements. -0.2 

Short 

Column/ 

Pier 

C1,C2,C3,PC1,PC2,RM1,RM2: At least 20% of columns (or piers) along a column line in the lateral system have 

height/depth ratios less than 50% of the nominal height/depth ratio at that level. -0.4 

C1,C2,C3,PC1,PC2,RM1,RM2: The column depth (or pier width) is less than one half of the depth of the spandrel, 

or there are infill walls or adjacent floors that shorten the column. -0.4 

Split Level There is a split level at one of the floor levels or at the roof. -0.4 

Other 

Irregularity 

There is another observable severe vertical irregularity that obviously affects the building's seismic performance. -0.7 

There is another observable moderate vertical irregularity that may affect the building's seismic performance. -0.4 

Plan 

Irregularity, PL2 

Torsional irregularity: Lateral system does not appear relatively well distributed in plan in either or both directions. (Do not 

include the W1A open front irregularity listed above.) -0.5 

PL2 = _______ 

(Cap at ‐0.7)

Non-parallel system: There are one or more major vertical elements of the lateral system that are not orthogonal to each other. -0.2 

Reentrant corner: Both projections from an interior corner exceed 25% of the overall plan dimension in that direction. -0.2 

Diaphragm opening: There is an opening in the diaphragm with a width over 50% of the total diaphragm width at that level. -0.2 

C1, C2 building out-of-plane offset: The exterior beams do not align with the columns in plan. -0.2 

Other irregularity: There is another observable plan irregularity that obviously affects the building's seismic performance. -0.5 

Redundancy The building has at least two bays of lateral elements on each side of the building in each direction. +0.2 

M = ________ 

Pounding Building is separated from an adjacent structure 

by less than 1.5% of the height of the shorter of 

the building and adjacent structure and: 

The floors do not align vertically within 2 feet. (Cap total 

pounding 

modifiers at -0.9) 

-0.7 

One building is 2 or more stories taller than the other. -0.7 

The building is at the end of the block. -0.4 

S2 Building “K” bracing geometry is visible. -0.7 

C1 Building Flat plate serves as the beam in the moment frame. -0.3 

PC1/RM1 Bldg There are roof-to-wall ties that are visible or known from drawings that do not rely on cross-grain bending. (Do not combine with 

post-benchmark or retrofit modifier.) +0.2 

PC1/RM1 Bldg The building has closely spaced, full height interior walls (rather than an interior space with few walls such as in a warehouse). +0.2 

URM Gable walls are present. -0.3 

MH There is a supplemental seismic bracing system provided between the carriage and the ground. +0.5 

Retrofit Comprehensive seismic retrofit is visible or known from drawings. +1.2 

FINAL LEVEL 2 SCORE, SL2 = (S’ + VL2 + PL2 + M) ≥ SMIN: (Transfer to Level 1 form) 

There is observable damage or deterioration or another condition that negatively affects the building's seismic performance: Yes No 

If yes, describe the condition in the comment box below and indicate on the Level 1 form that detailed evaluation is required independent of the building's score. 

OBSERVABLE NONSTRUCTURAL HAZARDS 

Location Statement (Check “Yes” or “No”) Yes No Comment 

Exterior There is an unbraced unreinforced masonry parapet or unbraced unreinforced masonry chimney. 

There is heavy cladding or heavy veneer. 

There is a heavy canopy over exit doors or pedestrian walkways that appears inadequately supported. 

There is an unreinforced masonry appendage over exit doors or pedestrian walkways. 

There is a sign posted on the building that indicates hazardous materials are present. 

There is a taller adjacent building with an unanchored URM wall or unbraced URM parapet or chimney. 

Other observed exterior nonstructural falling hazard: 

Interior There are hollow clay tile or brick partitions at any stair or exit corridor. 

Other observed interior nonstructural falling hazard: 

Estimated Nonstructural Seismic Performance (Check appropriate box and transfer to Level 1 form conclusions)

 Potential nonstructural hazards with significant threat to occupant life safety Detailed Nonstructural Evaluation recommended

 Nonstructural hazards identified with significant threat to occupant life safety But no Detailed Nonstructural Evaluation required

 Low or no nonstructural hazard threat to occupant life safety No Detailed Nonstructural Evaluation required 

Comments: 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Rapid Visual Screening of Buildings for Potential Seismic Hazards Level 1
 

FEMA P-154 Data Collection Form HIGH Seismicity
 

Legend: MRF = Moment-resisting frame RC = Reinforced concrete URM INF = Unreinforced masonry infill MH = Manufactured Housing FD = Flexible diaphragm 

PHOTOGRAPH 

Address: 

Zip: 

Other Identifiers: 

Building Name: 

Use: 

Latitude: Longitude: 

SS: S1: 

Screener(s): Date/Time: 

No. Stories: Above Grade: Below Grade: Year Built: EST 

Total Floor Area (sq. ft.): Code Year: 

Additions: None Yes, Year(s) Built: 

Occupancy: Assembly Commercial Emer. Services Historic Shelter 

Industrial Office School Government 

Utility Warehouse Residential, # Units: 

Soil Type: A 

Hard 

Rock 

B 

Avg 

Rock 

C 

Dense 

Soil 

D 

Stiff 

Soil 

E 

Soft 

Soil 

F 

Poor 

Soil 

DNK 

If DNK, assume Type D. 

Geologic Hazards: Liquefaction: Yes/No/DNK Landslide: Yes/No/DNK Surf. Rupt.: Yes/No/DNK 

Adjacency: Pounding Falling Hazards from Taller Adjacent Building 

Irregularities: Vertical (type/severity) 

 Plan (type) 

Exterior Falling 

Hazards:

 Unbraced Chimneys Heavy Cladding or Heavy Veneer

 Parapets Appendages

 Other: _______________________________________________ 

COMMENTS: 

SKETCH Additional sketches or comments on separate page 

BASIC SCORE, MODIFIERS, AND FINAL LEVEL 1 SCORE, SL1 

FEMA BUILDING TYPE Do Not 

Know 

W1 W1A W2 S1 

(MRF) 

S2 

(BR) 

S3 

(LM) 

S4 

(RC 

SW) 

S5 

(URM 

INF) 

C1 

(MRF) 

C2 

(SW) 

C3 

(URM 

INF) 

PC1 

(TU) 

PC2 RM1 

(FD) 

RM2 

(RD) 

URM MH 

Basic Score 

Severe Vertical Irregularity, VL1 

Moderate Vertical Irregularity, VL1 

Plan Irregularity, PL1 

Pre-Code 

Post-Benchmark 

Soil Type A or B 

Soil Type E (1-3 stories) 

Soil Type E (> 3 stories) 

3.6 

-1.2 

-0.7 

-1.1 

-1.1 

1.6 

0.1 

0.2 

-0.3 

3.2 

-1.2 

-0.7 

-1.0 

-1.0 

1.9 

0.3 

0.2 

-0.6 

2.9 

-1.2 

-0.7 

-1.0 

-0.9 

2.2 

0.5 

0.1 

-0.9 

2.1 

-1.0 

-0.6 

-0.8 

-0.6 

1.4 

0.4 

-0.2 

-0.6 

2.0 

-1.0 

-0.6 

-0.7 

-0.6 

1.4 

0.6 

-0.4 

-0.6 

2.6 

-1.1 

-0.7 

-0.9 

-0.8 

1.1 

0.1 

0.2 

NA 

2.0 

-1.0 

-0.6 

-0.7 

-0.6 

1.9 

0.6 

-0.1 

-0.6 

1.7 

-0.8 

-0.5 

-0.6 

-0.2 

NA 

0.5 

-0.4 

-0.4 

1.5 

-0.9 

-0.5 

-0.6 

-0.4 

1.9 

0.4 

0.0 

-0.5 

2.0 

-1.0 

-0.6 

-0.8 

-0.7 

2.1 

0.5 

0.0 

-0.7 

1.2 

-0.7 

-0.4 

-0.5 

-0.1 

NA 

0.3 

-0.2 

-0.3 

1.6 

-1.0 

-0.6 

-0.7 

-0.5 

2.0 

0.6 

-0.3 

NA

1.4 

-0.9 

-0.5 

-0.6 

-0.3 

2.4 

0.4 

-0.1 

-0.4 

1.7 

-0.9 

-0.5 

-0.7 

-0.5 

2.1 

0.5 

-0.1 

-0.5 

1.7 

-0.9 

-0.5 

-0.7 

-0.5 

2.1 

0.5 

-0.1 

-0.6 

1.0 

-0.7 

-0.4 

-0.4 

0.0 

NA 

0.3 

-0.2 

-0.2 

1.5 

NA 

NA 

NA 

-0.1 

1.2 

0.3 

-0.4 

NA 

Minimum Score, SMIN 1.1 0.9 0.7 0.5 0.5 0.6 0.5 0.5 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.2 1.0 

FINAL LEVEL 1 SCORE, SL1 ≥ SMIN: 

EXTENT OF REVIEW 

Exterior: Partial All Sides Aerial 

Interior: None Visible Entered 

Drawings Reviewed: Yes No 

Soil Type Source: 

Geologic Hazards Source: 

Contact Person: 

OTHER HAZARDS 

Are There Hazards That Trigger A 

Detailed Structural Evaluation? 

 Pounding potential (unless SL2 > 

cut-off, if known)

 Falling hazards from taller adjacent 

building 

Geologic hazards or Soil Type F

 Significant damage/deterioration to 

the structural system 

ACTION REQUIRED 

Detailed Structural Evaluation Required?

 Yes, unknown FEMA building type or other building 

 Yes, score less than cut-off 

 Yes, other hazards present

 No 

Detailed Nonstructural Evaluation Recommended? (check one)

 Yes, nonstructural hazards identified that should be evaluated 

 No, nonstructural hazards exist that may require mitigation, but a 

detailed evaluation is not necessary 

 No, no nonstructural hazards identified DNK 

LEVEL 2 SCREENING PERFORMED? 

 Yes, Final Level 2 Score, SL2 No 

Nonstructural hazards? Yes No 

Where information cannot be verified, screener shall note the following: EST = Estimated or unreliable data OR DNK = Do Not Know 

BR = Braced frame SW = Shear wall TU = Tilt up LM = Light metal RD = Rigid diaphragm 
 

 

 

 

  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Rapid Visual Screening of Buildings for Potential Seismic Hazards Level 2 (Optional)
 

FEMA P-154 Data Collection Form HIGH Seismicity
 Optional Level 2 data collection to be performed by a civil or structural engineering professional, architect, or graduate student with background in seismic evaluation or design of buildings. 

Bldg Name: Final Level 1 Score: SL1 = (do not consider SMIN) 

Screener: Level 1 Irregularity Modifiers: Vertical Irregularity, VL1 = Plan Irregularity, PL1 = 

Date/Time: ADJUSTED BASELINE SCORE: S’ = (SL1 – VL1 – PL1) = 

STRUCTURAL MODIFIERS TO ADD TO ADJUSTED BASELINE SCORE 

Topic Statement (If statement is true, circle the “Yes” modifier; otherwise cross out the modifier.) Yes Subtotals 

Vertical 

Irregularity, VL2 

Sloping 

Site 

W1 building: There is at least a full story grade change from one side of the building to the other. -1.2 

VL2 = _______ 

(Cap at  ‐1.2)

Non-W1 building: There is at least a full story grade change from one side of the building to the other. -0.3 

Weak 

and/or 

Soft Story 

(circle one 

maximum) 

W1 building cripple wall: An unbraced cripple wall is visible in the crawl space. -0.6 

W1 house over garage: Underneath an occupied story, there is a garage opening without a steel moment frame, 

and there is less than 8' of wall on the same line (for multiple occupied floors above, use 16' of wall minimum). -1.2 

W1A building open front: There are openings at the ground story (such as for parking) over at least 50% of the 

length of the building. -1.2 

Non-W1 building: Length of lateral system at any story is less than 50% of that at story above or height of any 

story is more than 2.0 times the height of the story above. -0.9 

Non-W1 building: Length of lateral system at any story is between 50% and 75% of that at story above or height 

of any story is between 1.3 and 2.0 times the height of the story above. -0.5 

Setback Vertical elements of the lateral system at an upper story are outboard of those at the story below causing the 

diaphragm to cantilever at the offset. -1.0 

Vertical elements of the lateral system at upper stories are inboard of those at lower stories. -0.5 

There is an in-plane offset of the lateral elements that is greater than the length of the elements. -0.3 

Short 

Column/ 

Pier 

C1,C2,C3,PC1,PC2,RM1,RM2: At least 20% of columns (or piers) along a column line in the lateral system have 

height/depth ratios less than 50% of the nominal height/depth ratio at that level. -0.5 

C1,C2,C3,PC1,PC2,RM1,RM2: The column depth (or pier width) is less than one half of the depth of the spandrel, 

or there are infill walls or adjacent floors that shorten the column. -0.5 

Split Level There is a split level at one of the floor levels or at the roof. -0.5 

Other 

Irregularity 

There is another observable severe vertical irregularity that obviously affects the building's seismic performance. -1.0 

There is another observable moderate vertical irregularity that may affect the building's seismic performance. -0.5 

Plan 

Irregularity, PL2 

Torsional irregularity: Lateral system does not appear relatively well distributed in plan in either or both directions. (Do not 

include the W1A open front irregularity listed above.) -0.7 

PL2 = _______ 

(Cap at ‐1.1)

Non-parallel system: There are one or more major vertical elements of the lateral system that are not orthogonal to each other. -0.4 

Reentrant corner: Both projections from an interior corner exceed 25% of the overall plan dimension in that direction. -0.4 

Diaphragm opening: There is an opening in the diaphragm with a width over 50% of the total diaphragm width at that level. -0.2 

C1, C2 building out-of-plane offset: The exterior beams do not align with the columns in plan. -0.4 

Other irregularity: There is another observable plan irregularity that obviously affects the building's seismic performance. -0.7 

Redundancy The building has at least two bays of lateral elements on each side of the building in each direction. +0.3 

M = ________ 

Pounding Building is separated from an adjacent structure 

by less than 1% of the height of the shorter of the 

building and adjacent structure and: 

The floors do not align vertically within 2 feet. (Cap total 

pounding 

modifiers at -1.2) 

-1.0 

One building is 2 or more stories taller than the other. -1.0 

The building is at the end of the block. -0.5 

S2 Building “K” bracing geometry is visible. -1.0 

C1 Building Flat plate serves as the beam in the moment frame. -0.4 

PC1/RM1 Bldg There are roof-to-wall ties that are visible or known from drawings that do not rely on cross-grain bending. (Do not combine with 

post-benchmark or retrofit modifier.) 

+0.3 

PC1/RM1 Bldg The building has closely spaced, full height interior walls (rather than an interior space with few walls such as in a warehouse). +0.3 

URM Gable walls are present. -0.4 

MH There is a supplemental seismic bracing system provided between the carriage and the ground. +1.2 

Retrofit Comprehensive seismic retrofit is visible or known from drawings. +1.4 

FINAL LEVEL 2 SCORE, SL2 = (S’ + VL2 + PL2 + M) ≥ SMIN: (Transfer to Level 1 form) 

There is observable damage or deterioration or another condition that negatively affects the building's seismic performance: Yes No 

If yes, describe the condition in the comment box below and indicate on the Level 1 form that detailed evaluation is required independent of the building's score. 

OBSERVABLE NONSTRUCTURAL HAZARDS 

Location Statement (Check “Yes” or “No”) Yes No Comment 

Exterior There is an unbraced unreinforced masonry parapet or unbraced unreinforced masonry chimney. 

There is heavy cladding or heavy veneer. 

There is a heavy canopy over exit doors or pedestrian walkways that appears inadequately supported. 

There is an unreinforced masonry appendage over exit doors or pedestrian walkways. 

There is a sign posted on the building that indicates hazardous materials are present. 

There is a taller adjacent building with an unanchored URM wall or unbraced URM parapet or chimney. 

Other observed exterior nonstructural falling hazard: 

Interior There are hollow clay tile or brick partitions at any stair or exit corridor. 

Other observed interior nonstructural falling hazard: 

Estimated Nonstructural Seismic Performance (Check appropriate box and transfer to Level 1 form conclusions)

 Potential nonstructural hazards with significant threat to occupant life safety Detailed Nonstructural Evaluation recommended

 Nonstructural hazards identified with significant threat to occupant life safety But no Detailed Nonstructural Evaluation required

 Low or no nonstructural hazard threat to occupant life safety No Detailed Nonstructural Evaluation required 

Comments: 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Rapid Visual Screening of Buildings for Potential Seismic Hazards Level 1
 

FEMA P-154 Data Collection Form MODERATELY HIGH Seismicity 

Legend: MRF = Moment-resisting frame RC = Reinforced concrete URM INF = Unreinforced masonry infill MH = Manufactured Housing FD = Flexible diaphragm 

PHOTOGRAPH 

Address: 

Zip: 

Other Identifiers: 

Building Name: 

Use: 

Latitude: Longitude: 

SS: S1: 

Screener(s): Date/Time: 

No. Stories: Above Grade: Below Grade: Year Built: EST 

Total Floor Area (sq. ft.): Code Year: 

Additions: None Yes, Year(s) Built: 

Occupancy: Assembly Commercial Emer. Services Historic Shelter 

Industrial Office School Government 

Utility Warehouse Residential, # Units: 

Soil Type: A 

Hard 

Rock 

B 

Avg 

Rock 

C 

Dense 

Soil 

D 

Stiff 

Soil 

E 

Soft 

Soil 

F 

Poor 

Soil 

DNK 

If DNK, assume Type D. 

Geologic Hazards: Liquefaction: Yes/No/DNK Landslide: Yes/No/DNK Surf. Rupt.: Yes/No/DNK 

Adjacency: Pounding Falling Hazards from Taller Adjacent Building 

Irregularities: Vertical (type/severity) 

 Plan (type) 

Exterior Falling 

Hazards:

 Unbraced Chimneys Heavy Cladding or Heavy Veneer

 Parapets Appendages

 Other: _______________________________________________ 

COMMENTS: 

SKETCH Additional sketches or comments on separate page 

BASIC SCORE, MODIFIERS, AND FINAL LEVEL 1 SCORE, SL1 

FEMA BUILDING TYPE Do Not 

Know 

W1 W1A W2 S1 

(MRF) 

S2 

(BR) 

S3 

(LM) 

S4 

(RC 

SW) 

S5 

(URM 

INF) 

C1 

(MRF) 

C2 

(SW) 

C3 

(URM 

INF) 

PC1 

(TU) 

PC2 RM1 

(FD) 

RM2 

(RD) 

URM MH 

Basic Score 

Severe Vertical Irregularity, VL1 

Moderate Vertical Irregularity, VL1 

Plan Irregularity, PL1 

Pre-Code 

Post-Benchmark 

Soil Type A or B 

Soil Type E (1-3 stories) 

Soil Type E (> 3 stories) 

4.1 

-1.3 

-0.8 

-1.3 

-0.8 

1.5 

0.3 

0.0 

-0.5 

3.7 

-1.3 

-0.8 

-1.2 

-0.9 

1.9 

0.6 

-0.1 

-0.8 

3.2 

-1.3 

-0.8 

-1.1 

-0.9 

2.3 

0.9 

-0.3 

-1.2 

2.3 

-1.1 

-0.7 

-0.9 

-0.5 

1.4 

0.6 

-0.4 

-0.7 

2.2 

-1.0 

-0.6 

-0.8 

-0.5 

1.4 

0.9 

-0.5 

-0.7 

2.9 

-1.2 

-0.8 

-1.0 

-0.7 

1.0 

0.3 

0.0 

NA 

2.2 

-1.0 

-0.6 

-0.8 

-0.6 

1.9 

0.9 

-0.4 

-0.7 

2.0 

-0.9 

-0.6 

-0.7 

-0.2 

NA 

0.9 

-0.5 

-0.6 

1.7 

-1.0 

-0.6 

-0.7 

-0.4 

1.9 

0.6 

-0.2 

-0.6 

2.1 

-1.1 

-0.6 

-0.9 

-0.7 

2.1 

0.8 

-0.2 

-0.8 

1.4 

-0.8 

-0.5 

-0.6 

-0.1 

NA 

0.7 

-0.4 

-0.4 

1.8 

-1.0 

-0.6 

-0.8 

-0.4 

2.1 

0.9 

-0.5 

NA

1.5 

-0.9 

-0.6 

-0.7 

-0.3 

2.4 

0.7 

-0.3 

-0.5 

1.8 

-1.0 

-0.6 

-0.7 

-0.5 

2.1 

0.8 

-0.4 

-0.6 

1.8 

-1.0 

-0.6 

-0.7 

-0.5 

2.1 

0.8 

-0.4 

-0.7 

1.2 

-0.8 

-0.5 

-0.5 

-0.1 

NA 

0.6 

-0.3 

-0.3 

2.2 

NA 

NA 

NA 

-0.3 

1.2 

0.9 

-0.5 

NA 

Minimum Score, SMIN 1.6 1.2 0.8 0.5 0.5 0.9 0.5 0.5 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.2 1.4 

FINAL LEVEL 1 SCORE, SL1 ≥ SMIN: 

EXTENT OF REVIEW 

Exterior: Partial All Sides Aerial 

Interior: None Visible Entered 

Drawings Reviewed: Yes No 

Soil Type Source: 

Geologic Hazards Source: 

Contact Person: 

OTHER HAZARDS 

Are There Hazards That Trigger A 

Detailed Structural Evaluation? 

 Pounding potential (unless SL2 > 

cut-off, if known)

 Falling hazards from taller adjacent 

building 

Geologic hazards or Soil Type F

 Significant damage/deterioration to 

the structural system 

ACTION REQUIRED 

Detailed Structural Evaluation Required?

 Yes, unknown FEMA building type or other building 

 Yes, score less than cut-off 

 Yes, other hazards present

 No 

Detailed Nonstructural Evaluation Recommended? (check one)

 Yes, nonstructural hazards identified that should be evaluated 

 No, nonstructural hazards exist that may require mitigation, but a 

detailed evaluation is not necessary 

 No, no nonstructural hazards identified DNK 

LEVEL 2 SCREENING PERFORMED? 

 Yes, Final Level 2 Score, SL2 No 

Nonstructural hazards? Yes No 

Where information cannot be verified, screener shall note the following: EST = Estimated or unreliable data OR DNK = Do Not Know 

BR = Braced frame SW = Shear wall TU = Tilt up LM = Light metal RD = Rigid diaphragm 
 

 

 

 

  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Rapid Visual Screening of Buildings for Potential Seismic Hazards Level 2 (Optional)
 

FEMA P-154 Data Collection Form MODERATELY HIGH Seismicity 

Optional Level 2 data collection to be performed by a civil or structural engineering professional, architect, or graduate student with background in seismic evaluation or design of buildings. 

Bldg Name: Final Level 1 Score: SL1 = (do not consider SMIN) 

Screener: Level 1 Irregularity Modifiers: Vertical Irregularity, VL1 = Plan Irregularity, PL1 = 

Date/Time: ADJUSTED BASELINE SCORE: S’ = (SL1 – VL1 – PL1) = 

STRUCTURAL MODIFIERS TO ADD TO ADJUSTED BASELINE SCORE 

Topic Statement (If statement is true, circle the “Yes” modifier; otherwise cross out the modifier.) Yes Subtotals 

Vertical 

Irregularity, VL2 

Sloping 

Site 

W1 building: There is at least a full story grade change from one side of the building to the other. -1.3 

VL2 = _______ 

(Cap at  ‐1.3)

Non-W1 building: There is at least a full story grade change from one side of the building to the other. -0.3 

Weak 

and/or 

Soft Story 

(circle one 

maximum) 

W1 building cripple wall: An unbraced cripple wall is visible in the crawl space. -0.6 

W1 house over garage: Underneath an occupied story, there is a garage opening without a steel moment frame, 

and there is less than 8' of wall on the same line (for multiple occupied floors above, use 16' of wall minimum). -1.3 

W1A building open front: There are openings at the ground story (such as for parking) over at least 50% of the 

length of the building. -1.3 

Non-W1 building: Length of lateral system at any story is less than 50% of that at story above or height of any 

story is more than 2.0 times the height of the story above. -1.0 

Non-W1 building: Length of lateral system at any story is between 50% and 75% of that at story above or height 

of any story is between 1.3 and 2.0 times the height of the story above. -0.5 

Setback Vertical elements of the lateral system at an upper story are outboard of those at the story below causing the 

diaphragm to cantilever at the offset. -1.0 

Vertical elements of the lateral system at upper stories are inboard of those at lower stories. -0.5 

There is an in-plane offset of the lateral elements that is greater than the length of the elements. -0.3 

Short 

Column/ 

Pier 

C1,C2,C3,PC1,PC2,RM1,RM2: At least 20% of columns (or piers) along a column line in the lateral system have 

height/depth ratios less than 50% of the nominal height/depth ratio at that level. -0.5 

C1,C2,C3,PC1,PC2,RM1,RM2: The column depth (or pier width) is less than one half of the depth of the spandrel, 

or there are infill walls or adjacent floors that shorten the column. -0.5 

Split Level There is a split level at one of the floor levels or at the roof. -0.5 

Other 

Irregularity 

There is another observable severe vertical irregularity that obviously affects the building's seismic performance. -1.0 

There is another observable moderate vertical irregularity that may affect the building's seismic performance. -0.5 

Plan 

Irregularity, PL2 

Torsional irregularity: Lateral system does not appear relatively well distributed in plan in either or both directions. (Do not 

include the W1A open front irregularity listed above.) -0.8 

PL2 = _______ 

(Cap at ‐1.3)

Non-parallel system: There are one or more major vertical elements of the lateral system that are not orthogonal to each other. -0.4 

Reentrant corner: Both projections from an interior corner exceed 25% of the overall plan dimension in that direction. -0.4 

Diaphragm opening: There is an opening in the diaphragm with a width over 50% of the total diaphragm width at that level. -0.3 

C1, C2 building out-of-plane offset: The exterior beams do not align with the columns in plan. -0.4 

Other irregularity: There is another observable plan irregularity that obviously affects the building's seismic performance. -0.8 

Redundancy The building has at least two bays of lateral elements on each side of the building in each direction. +0.3 

M = ________ 

Pounding Building is separated from an adjacent structure 

by less than 0.5% of the height of the shorter of 

the building and adjacent structure and: 

The floors do not align vertically within 2 feet. (Cap total 

pounding 

modifiers at -1.3) 

-1.0 

One building is 2 or more stories taller than the other. -1.0 

The building is at the end of the block. -0.5 

S2 Building “K” bracing geometry is visible. -1.0 

C1 Building Flat plate serves as the beam in the moment frame. -0.5 

PC1/RM1 Bldg There are roof-to-wall ties that are visible or known from drawings that do not rely on cross-grain bending. (Do not combine with 

post-benchmark or retrofit modifier.) 

+0.3 

PC1/RM1 Bldg The building has closely spaced, full height interior walls (rather than an interior space with few walls such as in a warehouse). +0.3 

URM Gable walls are present. -0.4 

MH There is a supplemental seismic bracing system provided between the carriage and the ground. +1.2 

Retrofit Comprehensive seismic retrofit is visible or known from drawings. +1.4 

FINAL LEVEL 2 SCORE, SL2 = (S’ + VL2 + PL2 + M) ≥ SMIN: (Transfer to Level 1 form) 

There is observable damage or deterioration or another condition that negatively affects the building's seismic performance: Yes No 

If yes, describe the condition in the comment box below and indicate on the Level 1 form that detailed evaluation is required independent of the building's score. 

OBSERVABLE NONSTRUCTURAL HAZARDS 

Location Statement (Check “Yes” or “No”) Yes No Comment 

Exterior There is an unbraced unreinforced masonry parapet or unbraced unreinforced masonry chimney. 

There is heavy cladding or heavy veneer. 

There is a heavy canopy over exit doors or pedestrian walkways that appears inadequately supported. 

There is an unreinforced masonry appendage over exit doors or pedestrian walkways. 

There is a sign posted on the building that indicates hazardous materials are present. 

There is a taller adjacent building with an unanchored URM wall or unbraced URM parapet or chimney. 

Other observed exterior nonstructural falling hazard: 

Interior There are hollow clay tile or brick partitions at any stair or exit corridor. 

Other observed interior nonstructural falling hazard: 

Estimated Nonstructural Seismic Performance (Check appropriate box and transfer to Level 1 form conclusions)

 Potential nonstructural hazards with significant threat to occupant life safety Detailed Nonstructural Evaluation recommended

 Nonstructural hazards identified with significant threat to occupant life safety But no Detailed Nonstructural Evaluation required

 Low or no nonstructural hazard threat to occupant life safety No Detailed Nonstructural Evaluation required 

Comments: 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Rapid Visual Screening of Buildings for Potential Seismic Hazards Level 1
 

FEMA P-154 Data Collection Form MODERATE Seismicity
 

Legend: MRF = Moment-resisting frame RC = Reinforced concrete URM INF = Unreinforced masonry infill MH = Manufactured Housing FD = Flexible diaphragm 

PHOTOGRAPH 

Address: 

Zip: 

Other Identifiers: 

Building Name: 

Use: 

Latitude: Longitude: 

SS: S1: 

Screener(s): Date/Time: 

No. Stories: Above Grade: Below Grade: Year Built: EST 

Total Floor Area (sq. ft.): Code Year: 

Additions: None Yes, Year(s) Built: 

Occupancy: Assembly Commercial Emer. Services Historic Shelter 

Industrial Office School Government 

Utility Warehouse Residential, # Units: 

Soil Type: A 

Hard 

Rock 

B 

Avg 

Rock 

C 

Dense 

Soil 

D 

Stiff 

Soil 

E 

Soft 

Soil 

F 

Poor 

Soil 

DNK 

If DNK, assume Type D. 

Geologic Hazards: Liquefaction: Yes/No/DNK Landslide: Yes/No/DNK Surf. Rupt.: Yes/No/DNK 

Adjacency: Pounding Falling Hazards from Taller Adjacent Building 

Irregularities: Vertical (type/severity) 

 Plan (type) 

Exterior Falling 

Hazards:

 Unbraced Chimneys Heavy Cladding or Heavy Veneer

 Parapets Appendages

 Other: _______________________________________________ 

COMMENTS: 

SKETCH Additional sketches or comments on separate page 

BASIC SCORE, MODIFIERS, AND FINAL LEVEL 1 SCORE, SL1 

FEMA BUILDING TYPE Do Not 

Know 

W1 W1A W2 S1 

(MRF) 

S2 

(BR) 

S3 

(LM) 

S4 

(RC 

SW) 

S5 

(URM 

INF) 

C1 

(MRF) 

C2 

(SW) 

C3 

(URM 

INF) 

PC1 

(TU) 

PC2 RM1 

(FD) 

RM2 

(RD) 

URM MH 

Basic Score 

Severe Vertical Irregularity, VL1 

Moderate Vertical Irregularity, VL1 

Plan Irregularity, PL1 

Pre-Code 

Post-Benchmark 

Soil Type A or B 

Soil Type E (1-3 stories) 

Soil Type E (> 3 stories) 

5.1 

-1.4 

-0.9 

-1.4 

-0.3 

1.4 

0.7 

-1.2 

-1.8 

4.5 

-1.4 

-0.9 

-1.3 

-0.5 

2.0 

1.2 

-1.3 

-1.6 

3.8 

-1.4 

-0.9 

-1.2 

-0.6 

2.5 

1.8 

-1.4 

-1.3 

2.7 

-1.2 

-0.8 

-1.0 

-0.3 

1.5 

1.1 

-0.9 

-0.9 

2.6 

-1.2 

-0.7 

-0.9 

-0.2 

1.5 

1.4 

-0.9 

-0.9 

3.5 

-1.4 

-0.9 

-1.2 

-0.2 

0.8 

0.6 

-1.0 

NA 

2.5 

-1.1 

-0.7 

-0.9 

-0.3 

2.1 

1.5 

-0.9 

-0.9 

2.7 

-1.2 

-0.7 

-0.9 

-0.3 

NA 

1.6 

-0.9 

-1.0 

2.1 

-1.1 

-0.7 

-0.8 

-0.3 

2.0 

1.1 

-0.7 

-0.8 

2.5 

-1.2 

-0.7 

-1.0 

-0.4 

2.3 

1.5 

-1.0 

-1.0 

2.0 

-1.0 

-0.6 

-0.8 

-0.3 

NA 

1.3 

-0.7 

-0.8 

2.1 

-1.1 

-0.7 

-0.9 

-0.2 

2.1 

1.6 

-0.8 

NA

1.9 

-1.0 

-0.6 

-0.8 

-0.2 

2.5 

1.3 

-0.7 

-0.7 

2.1 

-1.1 

-0.7 

-0.8 

-0.2 

2.3 

1.4 

-0.8 

-0.7 

2.1 

-1.1 

-0.7 

-0.8 

-0.2 

2.3 

1.4 

-0.8 

-0.8 

1.7 

-1.0 

-0.6 

-0.7 

-0.1 

NA 

1.3 

-0.6 

-0.6 

2.9 

NA 

NA 

NA 

-0.5 

1.2 

1.6 

-0.9 

NA 

Minimum Score, SMIN 1.6 1.2 0.9 0.6 0.6 0.8 0.6 0.6 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.2 1.5 

FINAL LEVEL 1 SCORE, SL1 ≥ SMIN: 

EXTENT OF REVIEW 

Exterior: Partial All Sides Aerial 

Interior: None Visible Entered 

Drawings Reviewed: Yes No 

Soil Type Source: 

Geologic Hazards Source: 

Contact Person: 

OTHER HAZARDS 

Are There Hazards That Trigger A 

Detailed Structural Evaluation? 

 Pounding potential (unless SL2 > 

cut-off, if known)

 Falling hazards from taller adjacent 

building 

Geologic hazards or Soil Type F

 Significant damage/deterioration to 

the structural system 

ACTION REQUIRED 

Detailed Structural Evaluation Required?

 Yes, unknown FEMA building type or other building 

 Yes, score less than cut-off 

 Yes, other hazards present

 No 

Detailed Nonstructural Evaluation Recommended? (check one)

 Yes, nonstructural hazards identified that should be evaluated 

 No, nonstructural hazards exist that may require mitigation, but a 

detailed evaluation is not necessary 

 No, no nonstructural hazards identified DNK 

LEVEL 2 SCREENING PERFORMED? 

 Yes, Final Level 2 Score, SL2 No 

Nonstructural hazards? Yes No 

Where information cannot be verified, screener shall note the following: EST = Estimated or unreliable data OR DNK = Do Not Know 

BR = Braced frame SW = Shear wall TU = Tilt up LM = Light metal RD = Rigid diaphragm 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Rapid Visual Screening of Buildings for Potential Seismic Hazards Level 2 (Optional)
 

FEMA P-154 Data Collection Form MODERATE Seismicity
 Optional Level 2 data collection to be performed by a civil or structural engineering professional, architect, or graduate student with background in seismic evaluation or design of buildings. 

Bldg Name: Final Level 1 Score: SL1 = (do not consider SMIN) 

Screener: Level 1 Irregularity Modifiers: Vertical Irregularity, VL1 = Plan Irregularity, PL1 = 

Date/Time: ADJUSTED BASELINE SCORE: S’ = (SL1 – VL1 – PL1) = 

STRUCTURAL MODIFIERS TO ADD TO ADJUSTED BASELINE SCORE 

Topic Statement (If statement is true, circle the “Yes” modifier; otherwise cross out the modifier.) Yes Subtotals 

Vertical 

Irregularity, VL2 

Sloping 

Site 

W1 building: There is at least a full story grade change from one side of the building to the other. -1.4 

VL2 = _______ 

(Cap at  ‐1.4)

Non-W1 building: There is at least a full story grade change from one side of the building to the other. -0.4 

Weak 

and/or 

Soft Story 

(circle one 

maximum) 

W1 building cripple wall: An unbraced cripple wall is visible in the crawl space. -0.7 

W1 house over garage: Underneath an occupied story, there is a garage opening without a steel moment frame, 

and there is less than 8' of wall on the same line (for multiple occupied floors above, use 16' of wall minimum). -1.4 

W1A building open front: There are openings at the ground story (such as for parking) over at least 50% of the 

length of the building. -1.4 

Non-W1 building: Length of lateral system at any story is less than 50% of that at story above or height of any 

story is more than 2.0 times the height of the story above. -1.1 

Non-W1 building: Length of lateral system at any story is between 50% and 75% of that at story above or height 

of any story is between 1.3 and 2.0 times the height of the story above. -0.6 

Setback Vertical elements of the lateral system at an upper story are outboard of those at the story below causing the 

diaphragm to cantilever at the offset. -1.2 

Vertical elements of the lateral system at upper stories are inboard of those at lower stories. -0.6 

There is an in-plane offset of the lateral elements that is greater than the length of the elements. -0.4 

Short 

Column/ 

Pier 

C1,C2,C3,PC1,PC2,RM1,RM2: At least 20% of columns (or piers) along a column line in the lateral system have 

height/depth ratios less than 50% of the nominal height/depth ratio at that level. -0.5 

C1,C2,C3,PC1,PC2,RM1,RM2: The column depth (or pier width) is less than one half of the depth of the 

spandrel, or there are infill walls or adjacent floors that shorten the column. -0.5 

Split Level There is a split level at one of the floor levels or at the roof. -0.6 

Other 

Irregularity 

There is another observable severe vertical irregularity that obviously affects the building's seismic performance. -1.2 

There is another observable moderate vertical irregularity that may affect the building's seismic performance. -0.6 

Plan 

Irregularity, PL2 

Torsional irregularity: Lateral system does not appear relatively well distributed in plan in either or both directions. (Do not 

include the W1A open front irregularity listed above.) -1.0 

PL2 = _______ 

(Cap at ‐1.4)

Non-parallel system: There are one or more major vertical elements of the lateral system that are not orthogonal to each other. -0.5 

Reentrant corner: Both projections from an interior corner exceed 25% of the overall plan dimension in that direction. -0.5 

Diaphragm opening: There is an opening in the diaphragm with a width over 50% of the total diaphragm width at that level. -0.3 

C1, C2 building out-of-plane offset: The exterior beams do not align with the columns in plan. -0.4 

Other irregularity: There is another observable plan irregularity that obviously affects the building's seismic performance. -1.0 

Redundancy The building has at least two bays of lateral elements on each side of the building in each direction. +0.4 

M = ________ 

Pounding Building is separated from an adjacent structure 

by less than 0.25% of the height of the shorter of 

the building and adjacent structure and: 

The floors do not align vertically within 2 feet. (Cap total 

pounding 

modifiers at -1.4) 

-1.2 

One building is 2 or more stories taller than the other. -1.2 

The building is at the end of the block. -0.6 

S2 Building “K” bracing geometry is visible. -1.2 

C1 Building Flat plate serves as the beam in the moment frame. -0.5 

PC1/RM1 Bldg There are roof-to-wall ties that are visible or known from drawings that do not rely on cross-grain bending. (Do not combine with 

post-benchmark or retrofit modifier.) 

+0.4 

PC1/RM1 Bldg The building has closely spaced, full height interior walls (rather than an interior space with few walls such as in a warehouse). +0.4 

URM Gable walls are present. -0.5 

MH There is a supplemental seismic bracing system provided between the carriage and the ground. +1.2 

Retrofit Comprehensive seismic retrofit is visible or known from drawings. +1.4 

FINAL LEVEL 2 SCORE, SL2 = (S’ + VL2 + PL2 + M) ≥ SMIN: (Transfer to Level 1 form) 

There is observable damage or deterioration or another condition that negatively affects the building's seismic performance: Yes No 

If yes, describe the condition in the comment box below and indicate on the Level 1 form that detailed evaluation is required independent of the building's score. 

OBSERVABLE NONSTRUCTURAL HAZARDS 

Location Statement (Check “Yes” or “No”) Yes No Comment 

Exterior There is an unbraced unreinforced masonry parapet or unbraced unreinforced masonry chimney. 

There is heavy cladding or heavy veneer. 

There is a heavy canopy over exit doors or pedestrian walkways that appears inadequately supported. 

There is an unreinforced masonry appendage over exit doors or pedestrian walkways. 

There is a sign posted on the building that indicates hazardous materials are present. 

There is a taller adjacent building with an unanchored URM wall or unbraced URM parapet or chimney. 

Other observed exterior nonstructural falling hazard: 

Interior There are hollow clay tile or brick partitions at any stair or exit corridor. 

Other observed interior nonstructural falling hazard: 

Estimated Nonstructural Seismic Performance (Check appropriate box and transfer to Level 1 form conclusions)

 Potential nonstructural hazards with significant threat to occupant life safety Detailed Nonstructural Evaluation recommended

 Nonstructural hazards identified with significant threat to occupant life safety But no Detailed Nonstructural Evaluation required

 Low or no nonstructural hazard threat to occupant life safety No Detailed Nonstructural Evaluation required 

Comments: 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Rapid Visual Screening of Buildings for Potential Seismic Hazards Level 1
 

FEMA P-154 Data Collection Form LOW Seismicity
 

Legend: MRF = Moment-resisting frame RC = Reinforced concrete URM INF = Unreinforced masonry infill MH = Manufactured Housing FD = Flexible diaphragm 

PHOTOGRAPH 

Address: 

Zip: 

Other Identifiers: 

Building Name: 

Use: 

Latitude: Longitude: 

SS: S1: 

Screener(s): Date/Time: 

No. Stories: Above Grade: Below Grade: Year Built: EST 

Total Floor Area (sq. ft.): Code Year: 

Additions: None Yes, Year(s) Built: 

Occupancy: Assembly Commercial Emer. Services Historic Shelter 

Industrial Office School Government 

Utility Warehouse Residential, # Units: 

Soil Type: A 

Hard 

Rock 

B 

Avg 

Rock 

C 

Dense 

Soil 

D 

Stiff 

Soil 

E 

Soft 

Soil 

F 

Poor 

Soil 

DNK 

If DNK, assume Type D. 

Geologic Hazards: Liquefaction: Yes/No/DNK Landslide: Yes/No/DNK Surf. Rupt.: Yes/No/DNK 

Adjacency: Pounding Falling Hazards from Taller Adjacent Building 

Irregularities: Vertical (type/severity) 

 Plan (type) 

Exterior Falling 

Hazards:

 Unbraced Chimneys Heavy Cladding or Heavy Veneer

 Parapets Appendages

 Other: _______________________________________________ 

COMMENTS: 

SKETCH Additional sketches or comments on separate page 

BASIC SCORE, MODIFIERS, AND FINAL LEVEL 1 SCORE, SL1 

FEMA BUILDING TYPE Do Not 

Know 

W1 W1A W2 S1 

(MRF) 

S2 

(BR) 

S3 

(LM) 

S4 

(RC 

SW) 

S5 

(URM 

INF) 

C1 

(MRF) 

C2 

(SW) 

C3 

(URM 

INF) 

PC1 

(TU) 

PC2 RM1 

(FD) 

RM2 

(RD) 

URM MH 

Basic Score 

Severe Vertical Irregularity, VL1 

Moderate Vertical Irregularity, VL1 

Plan Irregularity, PL1 

Pre-Code 

Post-Benchmark 

Soil Type A or B 

Soil Type E (1-3 stories) 

Soil Type E (> 3 stories) 

6.2 

-1.5 

-1.0 

-1.6 

NA

2.2 

0.9 

-1.2 

-1.7 

5.9 

-1.5 

-0.9 

-1.4 

NA

2.4 

1.1 

-1.7 

-2.0 

5.7 

-1.5 

-0.9 

-1.3 

NA

2.5 

1.3 

-2.3 

-2.2 

3.8 

-1.4 

-0.9 

-1.2 

NA 

2.0 

1.0 

-1.2 

-1.2 

3.9 

-1.3 

-0.8 

-1.1 

NA 

1.6 

1.2 

-1.4 

-1.4 

4.4 

-1.6 

-1.0 

-1.4 

NA 

1.4 

0.8 

-1.0 

NA 

4.1 

-1.2 

-0.7 

-1.0 

NA 

2.1 

1.3 

-1.7 

-1.7 

4.5 

-1.3 

-0.7 

-1.1 

NA 

NA 

1.4 

-2.0 

-1.9 

3.3 

-1.3 

-0.7 

-1.0 

NA 

2.3 

0.9 

-1.4 

-1.3 

4.2 

-1.2 

-0.7 

-1.0 

NA 

2.2 

1.2 

-2.0 

-1.9 

3.5 

-1.1 

-0.6 

-0.9 

NA 

NA 

1.2 

-1.6 

-1.6 

3.8 

-1.3 

-0.8 

-1.2 

NA

1.9 

1.3 

-1.7 

NA

3.3 

-1.1 

-0.6 

-0.9 

NA

2.6 

1.3 

-1.6 

-1.6 

3.7 

-1.1 

-0.6 

-0.9 

NA 

2.3 

1.4 

-1.7 

-1.6 

3.7 

-1.1 

-0.6 

-0.9 

NA 

2.3 

1.4 

-1.7 

-1.7 

3.2 

-1.2 

-0.7 

-1.0 

NA 

NA 

1.3 

-1.5 

-1.4 

4.6 

NA 

NA 

NA 

NA 

1.8 

0.9 

-2.1 

NA 

Minimum Score, SMIN 2.7 2.1 1.5 0.9 0.8 1.2 0.8 0.9 0.5 0.6 0.5 0.6 0.4 0.6 0.5 0.4 2.5 

FINAL LEVEL 1 SCORE, SL1 ≥ SMIN: 

EXTENT OF REVIEW 

Exterior: Partial All Sides Aerial 

Interior: None Visible Entered 

Drawings Reviewed: Yes No 

Soil Type Source: 

Geologic Hazards Source: 

Contact Person: 

OTHER HAZARDS 

Are There Hazards That Trigger A 

Detailed Structural Evaluation? 

 Pounding potential (unless SL2 > 

cut-off, if known)

 Falling hazards from taller adjacent 

building 

Geologic hazards or Soil Type F

 Significant damage/deterioration to 

the structural system 

ACTION REQUIRED 

Detailed Structural Evaluation Required?

 Yes, unknown FEMA building type or other building 

 Yes, score less than cut-off 

 Yes, other hazards present

 No 

Detailed Nonstructural Evaluation Recommended? (check one)

 Yes, nonstructural hazards identified that should be evaluated 

 No, nonstructural hazards exist that may require mitigation, but a 

detailed evaluation is not necessary 

 No, no nonstructural hazards identified DNK 

LEVEL 2 SCREENING PERFORMED? 

 Yes, Final Level 2 Score, SL2 No 

Nonstructural hazards? Yes No 

Where information cannot be verified, screener shall note the following: EST = Estimated or unreliable data OR DNK = Do Not Know 

BR = Braced frame SW = Shear wall TU = Tilt up LM = Light metal RD = Rigid diaphragm 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Rapid Visual Screening of Buildings for Potential Seismic Hazards Level 2 (Optional)
 

FEMA P-154 Data Collection Form LOW Seismicity
 Optional Level 2 data collection to be performed by a civil or structural engineering professional, architect, or graduate student with background in seismic evaluation or design of buildings. 

Bldg Name: Final Level 1 Score: SL1 = (do not consider SMIN) 

Screener: Level 1 Irregularity Modifiers: Vertical Irregularity, VL1 = Plan Irregularity, PL1 = 

Date/Time: ADJUSTED BASELINE SCORE: S’ = (SL1 – VL1 – PL1) = 

STRUCTURAL MODIFIERS TO ADD TO ADJUSTED BASELINE SCORE 

Topic Statement (If statement is true, circle the “Yes” modifier; otherwise cross out the modifier.) Yes Subtotals 

Vertical 

Irregularity, VL2 

Sloping 

Site 

W1 building: There is at least a full story grade change from one side of the building to the other. -1.5 

VL2 = _______ 

(Cap at  ‐1.5)

Non-W1 building: There is at least a full story grade change from one side of the building to the other. -0.4 

Weak 

and/or 

Soft Story 

(circle one 

maximum) 

W1 building cripple wall: An unbraced cripple wall is visible in the crawl space. -0.7 

W1 house over garage: Underneath an occupied story, there is a garage opening without a steel moment frame, 

and there is less than 8' of wall on the same line (for multiple occupied floors above, use 16' of wall minimum). -1.5 

W1A building open front: There are openings at the ground story (such as for parking) over at least 50% of the 

length of the building. -1.5 

Non-W1 building: Length of lateral system at any story is less than 50% of that at story above or height of any 

story is more than 2.0 times the height of the story above. -1.3 

Non-W1 building: Length of lateral system at any story is between 50% and 75% of that at story above or height 

of any story is between 1.3 and 2.0 times the height of the story above. -0.6 

Setback Vertical elements of the lateral system at an upper story are outboard of those at the story below causing the 

diaphragm to cantilever at the offset. -1.3 

Vertical elements of the lateral system at upper stories are inboard of those at lower stories. -0.6 

There is an in-plane offset of the lateral elements that is greater than the length of the elements. -0.4 

Short 

Column/ 

Pier 

C1,C2,C3,PC1,PC2,RM1,RM2: At least 20% of columns (or piers) along a column line in the lateral system have 

height/depth ratios less than 50% of the nominal height/depth ratio at that level. -0.6 

C1,C2,C3,PC1,PC2,RM1,RM2: The column depth (or pier width) is less than one half of the depth of the 

spandrel, or there are infill walls or adjacent floors that shorten the column. -0.6 

Split Level There is a split level at one of the floor levels or at the roof. -0.6 

Other 

Irregularity 

There is another observable severe vertical irregularity that obviously affects the building's seismic performance. -1.3 

There is another observable moderate vertical irregularity that may affect the building's seismic performance. -0.6 

Plan 

Irregularity, PL2 

Torsional irregularity: Lateral system does not appear relatively well distributed in plan in either or both directions. (Do not 

include the W1A open front irregularity listed above.) -1.1 

PL2 = _______ 

(Cap at ‐1.6)

Non-parallel system: There are one or more major vertical elements of the lateral system that are not orthogonal to each other. -0.6 

Reentrant corner: Both projections from an interior corner exceed 25% of the overall plan dimension in that direction. -0.6 

Diaphragm opening: There is an opening in the diaphragm with a width over 50% of the total diaphragm width at that level. -0.4 

C1, C2 building out-of-plane offset: The exterior beams do not align with the columns in plan. -0.5 

Other irregularity: There is another observable plan irregularity that obviously affects the building's seismic performance. -1.1 

Redundancy The building has at least two bays of lateral elements on each side of the building in each direction. +0.4 

M = ________ 

Pounding Building is separated from an adjacent structure 

by less than 0.1% of the height of the shorter of 

the building and adjacent structure and: 

The floors do not align vertically within 2 feet. (Cap total 

pounding 

modifiers at -1.5) 

-1.3 

One building is 2 or more stories taller than the other. -1.3 

The building is at the end of the block. -0.6 

S2 Building “K” bracing geometry is visible. -1.3 

C1 Building Flat plate serves as the beam in the moment frame. -0.6 

PC1/RM1 Bldg There are roof-to-wall ties that are visible or known from drawings that do not rely on cross-grain bending. (Do not combine with 

post-benchmark or retrofit modifier.) 

+0.4 

PC1/RM1 Bldg The building has closely spaced, full height interior walls (rather than an interior space with few walls such as in a warehouse). +0.4 

URM Gable walls are present. -0.6 

MH There is a supplemental seismic bracing system provided between the carriage and the ground. +1.8 

Retrofit Comprehensive seismic retrofit is visible or known from drawings. +1.6 

FINAL LEVEL 2 SCORE, SL2 = (S’ + VL2 + PL2 + M) ≥ SMIN: (Transfer to Level 1 form) 

There is observable damage or deterioration or another condition that negatively affects the building's seismic performance: Yes No 

If yes, describe the condition in the comment box below and indicate on the Level 1 form that detailed evaluation is required independent of the building's score. 

OBSERVABLE NONSTRUCTURAL HAZARDS 

Location Statement (Check “Yes” or “No”) Yes No Comment 

Exterior There is an unbraced unreinforced masonry parapet or unbraced unreinforced masonry chimney. 

There is heavy cladding or heavy veneer. 

There is a heavy canopy over exit doors or pedestrian walkways that appears inadequately supported. 

There is an unreinforced masonry appendage over exit doors or pedestrian walkways. 

There is a sign posted on the building that indicates hazardous materials are present. 

There is a taller adjacent building with an unanchored URM wall or unbraced URM parapet or chimney. 

Other observed exterior nonstructural falling hazard: 

Interior There are hollow clay tile or brick partitions at any stair or exit corridor. 

Other observed interior nonstructural falling hazard: 

Estimated Nonstructural Seismic Performance (Check appropriate box and transfer to Level 1 form conclusions)

 Potential nonstructural hazards with significant threat to occupant life safety Detailed Nonstructural Evaluation recommended

 Nonstructural hazards identified with significant threat to occupant life safety But no Detailed Nonstructural Evaluation required

 Low or no nonstructural hazard threat to occupant life safety No Detailed Nonstructural Evaluation required 

Comments: 
 

 

 

B.2 Quick Reference Guide 

Table B-1 FEMA Building Types and Code Adoption and Enforcement Dates 

FEMA Building Type 

Year Seismic 

Codes 

Initially 

Adopted and 

Enforced 

Benchmark Year 

when Codes 

Improved 

W1 Light wood frame single- or multiple-family dwellings 

W1A Light wood frame multi-unit, multi-story residential buildings 

with plan areas on each floor of greater than 3,000 square feet 

W2 Wood frame commercial and industrial buildings > 5,000 sqft 

S1 Steel moment-resisting frame 

S2 Braced steel frame 

S3 Light metal frame 

S4 Steel frame with cast-in-place concrete shear walls 

S5 Steel frame with unreinforced masonry infill walls 

C1 Concrete moment-resisting frame 

C2 Concrete shear wall 

C3 Concrete frame with unreinforced masonry infill walls 

PC1 Tilt-up construction 

PC2 Precast concrete frame 

RM1 Reinforced masonry with flexible floor and roof diaphragms 

RM2 Reinforced masonry with rigid floor and roof diaphragms 

URM Unreinforced masonry bearing-wall buildings 

MH Manufactured housing 

Anchorage of Heavy Cladding 

Year in which seismic anchorage requirements were adopted: 

Notes: 

These tables shall be filled out by the Supervising Engineer. See Section 2.6.3 of the Handbook for additional information. 

If seismic codes have never been adopted and enforced in the jurisdiction, apply the Pre-Code Score Modifier regardless of 

the building’s date of construction. 

Pre-Code: Building designed and constructed prior to the year in which seismic codes were initially adopted and 

enforced in the jurisdiction; pre-code years are not applicable in regions of Low seismicity. 

Post-Benchmark:	 Building designed and constructed after significant improvements in seismic code requirements 

(e.g., ductile detailing) were adopted and enforced; the benchmark year when codes improved may be 

different for each building type and jurisdiction. 

Heavy Cladding: Heavy cladding on buildings designed and constructed prior to the year noted is considered an exterior 

falling hazard and should be noted as such on the Level 1 form. 

B-12 B: Data Collection Forms and Reference Guides FEMA P-154 
B.3 Level 1 Building Addition Reference Guide 

Table B-2 Level 1 Reference Guide for Reviewing Buildings with Horizontal 

Additions 

Building Addition Screening Criteria Response Screening Guidance 

Criterion 1: Does the building have 

visible and aligned joints over the entire 

height of two exterior walls and across 

the roof? 

Yes Determine scores for each 

separate building defined by 

the joints and consider the 

potential for pounding using 

the adjacency guidelines in 

Section 3.9. 

No See Criterion 2 

Criterion 2: Does the building have any 

of the following characteristics: 

a) abrupt and noticeable differences in 

architectural style that occur on two 

sides of the building over the entire 

height of the exterior walls? 

b) visible differences in structural 

framing between distinct portions of the 

building? 

c) differences in floor elevation 

between portions of the building? 

Yes Screen as separate buildings 

defined by the differences 

noted in Criterion 2. 

Determine score for each 

portion and record the lower 

score. 

No Screen as a single building. 

FEMA P-154 Appendix B: Data Collection Forms and Reference Guides B-13 
 

B.4 Level 1 Pounding Reference Guide 

Table B-3 Level 1 Pounding Reference Guide 

Consider pounding when the separation between adjacent buildings is less than: 

 2” times number of stories in shorter building (in Very High seismicity region) 

 1 1/2” times number of stories in shorter building (in High seismicity region) 

 1” times number of stories in shorter building (in Moderately High seismicity region) 

 1/2” times number of stories in shorter building (in Moderate and Low seismicity regions) 

Examples: 

a) Two 2-story buildings next to each other in High seismicity region: 

 Minimum Separation = 1 1/2” x 2 = 3” 

b) 6-story building next to a 4-story building in Moderate seismicity

 region: Minimum Separation = 1/2” x 4 = 2” 

AND one or more of the following conditions apply: 

1. Floors of adjacent building do not align vertically within two feet: 

2. One building is 2 or more stories taller than the other: 

3. Building is at the end of the block: 

B-14 B: Data Collection Forms and Reference Guides FEMA P-154 
 

 

B.5 Vertical Irregularity Reference Guide 

Table B-4 Vertical Irregularity Reference Guide 

Vertical Irregularity Severity Level 1 Instructions 

Sloping Site (a) (b) Varies Apply if there is more than a one-story 

slope from one side of the building to the 

other. Evaluate as Severe for W1 buildings 

as shown in Figure (a); evaluate as 

Moderate for all other building types as 

shown in Figure (b). 

Unbraced Moderate Apply if unbraced cripple walls are 

Cripple Wall observed in the crawlspace of the 

building. This applies to W1 buildings. If 

the basement is occupied, consider this 

condition as a soft story. 

Weak and/or (a) (b) Severe Apply: 

Soft Story 

(c) (d) 

Figure (a): For a W1 house with occupied 

space over a garage with limited or short 

wall lengths on both sides of the garage 

opening. 

Figure (b): For a W1A building with an 

open front at the ground story (such as for 

parking). 

Figure (c): When one of the stories has 

less wall or fewer columns than the others 

(usually the bottom story). 

Figure (d): When one of the stories is taller 

than the others (usually the bottom story). 

Out-of-Plane (a) (b) Severe Apply if the walls of the building do not 

Setback stack vertically in plan. This irregularity is 

most severe when the vertical elements of 

the lateral system at the upper levels are 

outboard of those at the lower levels as 

shown in Figure (a). The condition in 

Figure (b) also triggers this irregularity. If 

nonstacking walls are known to be 

nonstructural, this irregularity does not 

apply. 

Apply the setback if greater than or equal 

to 2 feet. 

FEMA P-154 Appendix B: Data Collection Forms and Reference Guides B-15 
Table B-4 Vertical Irregularity Reference Guide (continued) 

Vertical Irregularity Severity Level 1 Instructions 

In-plane 

Setback 

(a) (b) Moderate Apply if there is an in-plane offset of the 

lateral system. Usually, this is observable in 

braced frame (Figure (a)) and shear wall 

buildings (Figure (b)). 

Short 

Column/Pier 

(a) (b) 

(c) 

Severe Apply if: 

Figure (a): Some columns/piers are much 

shorter than the typical columns/piers in 

the same line. 

Figure (b): The columns/piers are narrow 

compared to the depth of the beams. 

Figure (c): There are infill walls that shorten 

the clear height of the column. 

Note this deficiency is typically seen in 

older concrete and steel building types. 

Split Levels Moderate Apply if the floors of the building do not 

align or if there is a step in the roof level. 

B-16 B: Data Collection Forms and Reference Guides FEMA P-154 
B.6 Plan Irregularity Reference Guide 

Table B-5 Plan Irregularity Reference Guide 

Plan Irregularity Level 1 Instructions 

Torsion 

(a) (b) 

Apply if there is good lateral resistance in one 

direction, but not the other, or if there is eccentric 

stiffness in plan (as shown in Figures (a) and (b); solid 

walls on two or three sides with walls with lots of 

openings on the remaining sides). 

Non-Parallel 

Systems 

Apply if the sides of the building do not form 

90-degree angles. 

Reentrant 

Corner 

Apply if there is a reentrant corner, i.e., the building 

is L, U, T, or + shaped, with projections of more 

than 20 feet. Where possible, check to see if there 

are seismic separations where the wings meet. If so, 

evaluate for pounding. 

Diaphragm 

Openings 

Apply if there is a opening that has a width of over 

50% of the width of the diaphragm at any level. 

Beams do 

not align 

with 

columns 

Apply if the exterior beams do not align with the 

columns in plan. Typically, this applies to concrete 

buildings, where the perimeter columns are 

outboard of the perimeter beams. 

FEMA P-154 Appendix B: Data Collection Forms and Reference Guides B-17 
 

B.7 Level 2 Building Addition Reference Guide 

Table B-6 Level 2 Building Addition Reference Guide 

Addition 

Orientation Type of Addition Example 

RVS Screening 

Recommendation 

Notes and Additional 

Instructions 

Vertical Single story addition 

has a smaller footprint 

than the original 

building 

Evaluate as a single 

building using the total 

number of stories of 

the original building 

and addition and 

indicate a setback 

vertical irregularity. 

Vertical setback irregularity 

applies if the area of the 

addition is less than 90 

percent of the area of the 

story below or if two or more 

walls of the addition are not 

aligned with the walls below. 

Vertical Single or multiple 

story addition with 

similar footprint and 

seismic force-resisting 

system as the original 

building 

Evaluate as a single 

building using the total 

number of stories of 

the building plus the 

addition. 

If the vertical elements of the 

seismic force-resisting system 

of the addition do not align 

with the vertical elements of 

the seismic force-resisting 

system below, apply the 

setback vertical irregularity. 

Vertical Single or multiple 

story addition in 

which the addition has 

a different seismic 

force-resisting system 

Evaluate as a single 

building with another 

observable moderate 

vertical irregularity. 

If the footprint of the addition 

is less than 90 percent of the 

story below or if two or more 

walls of the addition are not 

aligned with the walls below, 

a setback vertical irregularity 

should also be indicated. 

Horizontal Addition with same 

construction type and 

number of stories as 

original and horizontal 

dimension of the 

narrower building at 

the interface is less 

than or equal to 50% 

of the length of the 

wider building 

Evaluate as a single 

building with a 

torsional irregularity 

plan irregularity. 

If the difference in horizontal 

dimension is between 50% 

and 75%, indicate a reentrant 

corner irregularity. If the floor 

heights are not aligned within 

2 feet, presence of pounding 

is indicated. 

Horizontal Addition with a 

different height than 

the original building 

Evaluate as a single 

building using the 

height of the taller 

building and indicate 

a Pounding Score 

Modifier if the heights 

of the buildings differ 

by more than 2 stories 

or if the floors do not 

align with 2 feet. 

If the horizontal dimension of 

the narrower of the two 

buildings along the interface is 

less than 75% of the 

dimension of the wider, the 

reentrant corner plan 

irregularity should be 

indicated. 

The above horizontal addition scenarios assume that there is not an obvious separation gap between the addition and the 

original building. 

B-18 B: Data Collection Forms and Reference Guides FEMA P-154 
 

Table B-6 Level 2 Building Addition Reference Guide (continued) 

Addition 

Orientation Type of Addition Example 

RVS Screening 

Recommendation 

Notes and Additional 

Instructions 

Horizontal Addition with different 

building type than 

original 

Evaluate a single 

building with torsional 

irregularity using the 

building type with the 

lower basic score. 

If the floors do not align 

within 2 feet or the number of 

stories differs by more than 2 

stories, also indicate the 

appropriate Pounding Score 

Modifier. 

Horizontal Small addition where 

the addition relies on 

the original building 

for gravity support 

Evaluate as a single 

building. Evaluate for 

the presence of a 

setback irregularity if 

there is a difference in 

the number of stories 

and plan irregularity if 

there is a difference in 

horizontal dimension 

of the original building 

and addition along the 

interface. 

If the construction type of the 

addition is different than the 

original building, evaluate as 

two buildings with the 

addition as having an 

observable severe vertical 

irregularity. 

The above horizontal addition scenarios assume that there is not an obvious separation gap between the addition and the 

original building. 

FEMA P-154 Appendix B: Data Collection Forms and Reference Guides B-19 

 

 

 

Appendix C 

Review of Design and 

Construction Drawings 

Drawing styles vary among engineering offices, but the conventions used are 

very consistent. The following are some of the common designations: 

	 Around the perimeter of the building, the exterior walls will be shown as 

a double line, if the space between the lines is empty, this will usually be 

a wood stud wall: 

	 Concrete walls will be shaded or dotted: 

	 Masonry walls will be cross hatched or double hatched: 

	 Horizontal beams and girders will be shown with a solid line for steel 

and wood, and a double solid or dotted line for concrete. 

o	 Steel framing will have a notation of shape, depth, and weight of the 

member. The designations will include W, S, I, B and several others 

followed by the depth in inches, an “x,” and the weight in pounds per 

lineal foot. An example would be W8x10 (wide flange shape, 8” 

deep, 10 lbs/ft). 

o	 Wood framing will have the width and depth of the member. An 

example would be 4x10 (4” wide and 10” deep). Floor joists and 

roof rafters will be shown with the same call-out except not all 

members will be shown. A few at each end of the area being framed 

will show, and there will be an arrow showing the extent and the 

call-out of the size members. 

o	 Concrete framing will have the width and depth. Where steel and 

wood are shown as single line, concrete will be shown as a double 

line. An example of the call out would be 12x24 (12” wide and 24” 

deep). Additionally, or in lieu of the number call-out, the member 

might be given a letter and number (e.g., B-1, G-1) with a reference 

to a schedule for the size and reinforcing, where B stands for beam 

or 

or 

FEMA P-154 C: Review of Design and Construction Drawings C-1 
 

 

and G stands for girder. Usually, beams are smaller than girders and 

span between girders while girders will be larger and frame between 

columns. 

	 Columns will be shown on the floor plans as their shape with a shading 

designation where appropriate: 

o	 Steel columns will be shown as an “H” rotated to the correct 

orientation for the location on the plan:

 or 

o	 Wood columns will be an open square: 

o	 Concrete columns will be either a square or a circle depending on the 

column configuration. The square or circle will be shaded or dotted: 

or 

	 Steel moment frames will show the columns with a heavy line between 

the columns representing the beam or girder. At each end of the beam or 

girder at the column will be a small shaded triangle, indicating that the 

connection between the beam or girder and the column is fully restrained 

Figure C-1 shows an example of a framing plan for floor in a steel S1 or S2 

building, and Figure C-2 shows an example for a concrete C2 building. 

FEMA P-154 C: Review of Design and Construction Drawings C-2 
Figure C-1 Representative construction drawing of a floor plan for an S1 building. S2 detailing also shown. 

FEMA P-154 C: Review of Design and Construction Drawings C-3 
Figure C-2 Representative construction drawing of a floor plan for a C2 building. 

FEMA P-154 C: Review of Design and Construction Drawings C-4 
 

 

Appendix D 

Exterior Screening for Seismic 

System and Age 

D.1 Introduction 

A successful evaluation of a building is dependent on the screener’s ability to 

identify accurately the construction materials, seismic force-resisting system, 

age, and other attributes that would modify its earthquake performance (e.g., 

vertical or plan irregularities). This appendix includes discussions of 

inspection techniques that can be used while viewing from the street. 

D.2 What to Look For and How to Find It 

It may be difficult to identify positively the FEMA Building Type from the 

street as building veneers often mask the structural skeleton. For example, a 

steel frame and a concrete frame may look similar from the outside. Features 

typical of a specific type of structure may give clues for successful 

identification. In some cases, there may be more than one type of frame 

present in the structure. Should this be the case, the predominant frame type 

should be indicated on the form. 

Following are attributes that should be considered when trying to determine a 

building seismic force-resisting system from the street: 

	 Age. The approximate age of a building can indicate the possible FEMA 

Building Type, as well as indicating the seismic design code used during 

the building design process. Age is difficult to determine visually, but an 

approximation, accurate within perhaps a decade, can be estimated by 

looking at the architectural style and detail treatment of the building 

exterior, if the façade has not been renovated. If a building has been 

renovated, the apparent age is misleading. See Section D.3 for additional 

guidance. 

	 Façade Pattern. The type of structure can sometimes be deduced by the 

openness of the façade, or the size and pattern of window openings. The 

façade material often can give hints to the structure beneath. Newer 

façade materials likely indicate that modern construction types were used 

in the design and may indicate that certain building types can be 

eliminated. 

FEMA P-154 D: Exterior Screening for Seismic System and Age D-1 
	 Height. The number of stories will indicate the possible type of 

construction. This is particularly useful for taller buildings, when 

combined with knowledge of local building practice. See Section D.4 for 

additional guidance. 

	 Original Use. The original use can, at times, give hints as to the FEMA 

Building Type. The original use can be inferred from the building 

character, if the building has not been renovated. The present use may be 

different from the original use. This is especially true in neighborhoods 

that have changed in character. A typical example of this is where a 

city’s central business district has grown rapidly, and engulfed what were 

once industrial districts. A building’s use may have changed to mixed 

office, commercial or residential (for office workers). 

D.3 Identification of Building Age 

The ability to identify the age of a building by considering its architectural 

style and construction materials requires an extensive knowledge of 

architectural history and past construction practice. It is beyond the scope of 

this Handbook to discuss the various styles and construction practices. 

Persons involved in or interested in buildings often have a general knowledge 

of architectural history relevant to their region. Interested readers should refer 

to in-depth texts for more specific information. 

Photographs, architectural character, and age of residential, commercial, and 

mixed use and miscellaneous buildings, are illustrated in Tables D-1 through 

D-3, respectively. Photographs of several example steel frame and concrete 

frame buildings under construction are provided in Figure D-1. The screener 

should study these photographs and characteristics closely to assist in 

differentiating architectural styles and façade treatment of various periods. 

Façade renovation (see Photos b and c in Figure D-1) can clearly alter the 

original appearance. When estimating building age, the screener should look 

at the building from all sides as façade renovation often occurs only at the 

building front. A new building will seldom look like an old one. That is, a 

building is usually at least as old as it looks. Even when designed to look old, 

telltale signs of modern techniques can usually be seen in the type of windows, 

fixtures, and material used. 

D.4 Identification of FEMA Building Type 

The most common inspection that will be utilized with the RVS procedure will 

be the exterior or “sidewalk” or “streetside” survey. First, the evaluation 

should be as thorough as possible and performed in a logical manner. The 

street-facing front of the building is the starting point and the evaluation 

D-2 D: Exterior Screening for Seismic System and Age FEMA P-154 
 

a. 1965 – 1980 

b. 1965-1980 

c. 1965-1980 

d. 1960-1975 reinforced concrete 

shear wall 

e. Pre-1933 URM (rehabilitated) 

begins at the ground and progressively moves up the exterior wall to the roof 

or parapet line. 

Table D-1 Photographs, Architectural Characteristics, and Age of Residential Buildings 

Examples Characteristics 

Low-Rise Buildings 

(1-3 stories): 

 Typically wood or masonry 

 May have ground floor or 

basement parking, a soft story 

 Older buildings typically have 

more architectural detail, 

ornamentation 

 1950s and later are more 

modern, lacking 

ornamentation, typically with 

more horizontal lines 

Common FEMA Building Types: 

W1A, W2, C1, C2, RM1, RM2, 

URM 

Mid-Rise (4-7 stories) and 

High-Rise Buildings (8 stories 

and higher): 

 Typically, reinforced concrete 

(older, URM) 

 May have commercial ground 

floor, a soft story 

 Older buildings typically have 

more cornices, architectural 

detail, ornamentation 

 1950s and later are lacking 

ornamentation, typically with 

stronger vertical or horizontal 

lines 

Common FEMA Building Types: 

W1A, RM1, RM2, URM 

FEMA P-154 D: Exterior Screening for Seismic System and Age D-3 
b. 1910-1920
 

(Steel frame with unreinforced masonry infil

that has been seismically 

rehabilitated)
 

d. 1920-1930
 

a. Pre-1930 (The New American Library, 

1980) 

c. 1920-1930 

e. 1890-1900 

Examples 

l

Table D-2 Illustrations, Architectural Characteristics, and Age of Commercial Structures 

Characteristics 

Pre-1950: 

 Building has flat roof with 

cornices, or several 

setbacks. 

 Ornate decorative work 

in concrete, terra cotta, 

cast stone or iron. 

 Large bell tower or clock 

tower is common. 

 Simple pattern of 

windows on all sides. 

 Floors are concrete slabs 

on steel or concrete 

beams. 

 Exterior is stone, terra 

cotta or concrete. 

Common FEMA Building 

Types: S2, S5, C2, C3 

D-4 D: Exterior Screening for Seismic System and Age FEMA P-154 
Table D-2 Illustrations, Architectural Characteristics, and Age of Commercial Structures (continued) 

Examples Characteristics 

f. 44 story, 1960s, L-shape on the

left; 20 story, 1914, with setback

on the right 

g. 1950-1975

1950-1975: 

 Flat roof, typically with no

cornice.

 Building is square or

rectangular full height, fewer

setbacks.

 First story and top story can be

taller than other stories. In

some cases, the top story

could be shorter than others.

 Exterior finishes metal or glass,

pre-cast stone or concrete.

 Floors are concrete slab over

steel or concrete beams.

Common FEMA Building Types: 

S1, S2, S4, C1, C2 

i. 1950-1975

h. 1940-1950

j. 1950-1975

FEMA P-154 D: Exterior Screening for Seismic System and Age D-5 
k. Post-1975 

m. Post-1975 

l. Post-1975 

Table D-2 Illustrations, Architectural Characteristics, and Age of Commercial Structures (continued) 

Examples Characteristics 

Post-1975: 

 Flat roof, typically with no 

cornice. 

 Building is square or 

rectangular for its full 

height, fewer setbacks. 

 First story and top story 

can be taller than other 

stories. (In some cases, 

though, the top story 

could be shorter than 

others.) 

 Exterior finishes: metal or 

glass, pre-cast stone or 

concrete, with little 

ornamentation 

 Floors are concrete slabs 

over steel or concrete 

beams. 

Common FEMA Building 

Types: S1, S2, S4, C1, C2 

n. Post-1975 

o. Post-1975 

D-6 D: Exterior Screening for Seismic System and Age FEMA P-154 
 

a. 1920-1930

c. 1990-2000

b. 1920-1950

e. 1920-1930; windows create

coupled shear walls. 

d. 1990-2000; airport terminal

h. 1920-1930; theater and shops complex, reinforced concrete

f. Pre-1930

g. 1950 – 1965 parking

structure 

Table D-3 Photographs, Architectural Characteristics, and Age of Miscellaneous Structures 

Examples Characteristics 

Mixed use (residential with a 

commercial first floor), places of 

assembly, theatres, triangular 

buildings, halls, parking structures: 

 Long spans

 Tall first story (for commercial

use) - soft or weak story

 Atria or irregular floor-to-floor

layout

FEMA P-154 D: Exterior Screening for Seismic System and Age D-7 
D-8 D: Exterior Screening for Seismic System and Age FEMA P-154 

a. Building above is a high-rise steel dual system: moment

frame (heavy columns and beams on upper façade) with 

bracing around elevator core. Fireproofing is being applied 

to steel at mid-height (inside the shroud) and precast façade 

elements are being attached to frame in lower stories. 

b. Reinforced concrete frame under renovation:

demolition of older façade units. 

c. New precast façade units being applied to reinforced

concrete frame buildings. 

Figure D-1 Photos showing basic construction in steel-frame buildings and reinforced concrete-frame buildings. 

For taller buildings, a pair of binoculars is useful. When a thorough 

inspection of the street-front elevation has been completed, the procedure is 

repeated on the next accessible wall. From the exterior, the screener should 

be able to determine the approximate age of the building, its original 

occupancy, and count the number of stories. With this information, Tables 

D-4 through D-7 provide the most likely structural system type, based on 

original occupancy and number of stories. These tables are based on expert 

judgment and would benefit from verification by design professionals and 

building regulatory personnel familiar with local design and construction 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Table D-4 Most Likely FEMA Building Types for Pre-1930 Buildings 

Original Occupancy 1-2 3 

Number of Stories 

4-6 7-15 15-30 30+

 Residential W1 W1A W1A S5 

W1A URM S5 C3 

URM C3

 URM

 Commercial W2 W2 S1 S1 S1 

S4 S4 S2 S2 S2 

S5 S5 S4 S4 S4 

C1 C1 S5 S5 S5 

C2 C2 C1 C1 C1 

C3 C3 C2 C2 C2 

URM URM C3 C3 C3

 URM

 Industrial W2 W2 

S1 S1 

S2 S2 

S3 S5 

S5 C1 

C1 C2 

C2 C3 

C3 URM 

URM 

practices. Note that if it is not possible to identify immediately the FEMA 

Building Type for a pre-1930 building, the original occupancy and number of 

stories will provide some guidance. The building will need further inspection 

for precise identification. 

In addition to using information on occupancy and number of stories, as 

provided in Tables D-4 through D-7, the following are some locations that the 

screener can look, without performing destructive investigations, to gain 

insight into the structure type: 

	 In newer frame construction the columns are often exposed on the exterior 

in the first story. If the columns are covered with a façade material, they 

are most likely steel columns, indicating a steel frame. If the frames are 

concrete, they are usually exposed and not covered with a façade. See 

Figures D-2 and D-3. 

FEMA P-154 D: Exterior Screening for Seismic System and Age D-9 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Table D-5 Most Likely FEMA Building Types for 1930-1945 Buildings 

Original Occupancy 1-2 3 

Number of Stories 

4-6 7-15 15-30 30+

 Residential W1 W1A W1A S1 

W1A URM S1 S2 

URM S2 S5 

S5 

URM

 Commercial W2 W2 S1 S1 S1 S2 

S1 S1 S2 S2 S2 S5 

S2 S2 S5 S5 S5 

S5 S5 C1 C1 C1 

C1 C1 C2 C2 C2 

C2 C2 C3 C3 C3 

C3 C3 RM1 

RM1 RM1 RM2 

RM2 RM2 URM 

URM URM

 Industrial S3 S3 C1 

S5 S5 C2 

C1 C1 C3 

C2 C2 

C3 C3 

RM1 RM1 

RM2 RM2 

URM URM 

D-10 D: Exterior Screening for Seismic System and Age FEMA P-154 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

   

Table D-6 Most Likely FEMA Building Types for 1945-1960 Buildings 

Original Occupancy 1-2 3 

Number of Stories 

4-6 7-15 15-30 30+

 Residential W1 W1A S1 S1 S1 S1 

W1A RM S2 S2 S2 S2 

RM URM* C1 C1 C1 C1 

URM* C2 C2 C2 C2 

RM1 

RM2 

URM*

 Commercial W2 W2 S1 S1 S1 S1 

S1 S1 S2 S2 S2 S2 

S2 S2 C1 C1 C1 C1 

C1 C1 C2 C2 C2 C2 

C2 C2 RM1 

RM1 RM1 RM2 

RM2 RM2 URM* 

URM* URM*

 Industrial C1 S1 S1 

C2 S2 S2 

PC1 C1 C1 

RM1 C2 C2 

RM2 RM1 RM1 

URM* RM2 RM2 

 URM* URM* 

*By this period, URM was generally not permitted in California or other high-seismicity regions, 

so that only in the central or eastern U.S. would buildings of this age be URM. 

FEMA P-154 D: Exterior Screening for Seismic System and Age D-11 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Table D-7 Most Likely FEMA Building Types for Post-1960 Buildings 

Original Occupancy 1-2 3 

Number of Stories 

4-6 7-15 15-30 30+

 Residential W1, W1A W1A S1 

W1A S1 S1 S2 

S1 S2 S2 C1 

S2 C1 C1 C2 

C1 C2 C2 PC2 

C2 PC2 PC2 RM1 

PC2 RM1 RM1 RM2 

RM1 RM2 RM2 

RM2 

Commercial W2 W2 W2 S1 S1 S1 

S1 S1 S1 S2 S2 S2 

S2 S2 S2 C1 C1 C1 

C1 C1 C1 C2 C2 C2 

C2 C2 C2 PC2 PC2 

PC1 PC1 PC2 RM1 

PC2 PC2 RM1 RM2 

RM1 RM1 RM2 

RM2 RM2 

 Industrial S1 S1 S1 S1 C1 

S2 S2 S2 S2 C2 

S3 C1 C1 C1 PC2 

C1 C2 C2 C2 

C2 PC1 PC2 PC2 

PC1 PC2 RM1 

PC2 RM1 RM2 

RM1 RM2 

RM2 

D-12 D: Exterior Screening for Seismic System and Age FEMA P-154 
 

Figure D-2 Building with exterior columns covered with a façade material. 

Figure D-3 Detail of the column façade of Figure D-2. 

	 Some structures use a combination of shear walls in the transverse 

direction and frames in the longitudinal direction. This can be seen from 

the exterior as the shear walls usually extend through the exterior 

longitudinal wall and are exposed there. This is most common in hotels 

and other residential structures where balconies are included. See Figure 

D-4. 

FEMA P-154 D: Exterior Screening for Seismic System and Age D-13 
Figure D-4 Building with both shear walls (in the short direction) and frames 

(in the long direction). 

	 An inspection of doorways and window framing can determine wall

thickness. When the thickness exceeds approximately 12 inches, the wall

is most likely unreinforced masonry (URM).

	 If there are vertical joints in the wall, regularly spaced and extending to the

full height, the wall is constructed of concrete, and if three or less stories in

height, the FEMA Building Type is most likely a tilt-up (PC1). See

Figure D-5.

Figure D-5 Regular, full-height joints in a building’s wall indicate a concrete 

tilt-up. 

D-14	 D: Exterior Screening for Seismic System and Age FEMA P-154 
	 If the building is constructed of brick masonry without header courses 

(horizontal rows of visible brick ends), and the wall thickness is 

approximately 8 inches, the FEMA Building Type is most likely 

reinforced masonry (RM1 or RM2). See Figure D-6. 

Figure D-6 Reinforced masonry wall showing no course of header bricks (a 

row of visible brick ends). 

	 If the exterior wall shows large concrete block units (approximately 8 to 

12 inches high and 12 to 16 inches in length), either smooth or rough 

faced, the FEMA Building Type may be reinforced concrete block 

masonry (RM1 and RM2). See Figure D-7. 

Figure D-7 Reinforced masonry building with exterior wall of concrete 

masonry units, or concrete blocks. 

FEMA P-154 D: Exterior Screening for Seismic System and Age D-15 
 

Because many buildings have been renovated, the screener should know 

where to look for clues to the original construction. Most renovations are 

done for commercial retail spaces, as businesses like to have an up-to-date 

image. Most exterior renovations are only to the front of the building or to 

walls that attract attention. Therefore, the original construction can often be 

seen at the sides, or the rear, where people generally do not look. If the 

original material is covered in these areas, it is often just painted or lightly 

plastered. In this case, the pattern of the older material can often still be seen. 

Clues helping identify the original material are apparent if one is looking for 

them. Two examples are included here: 

	 Figure D-8 shows a building with a 1970s polished stone and glass façade.

The side of the building indicates that it is a pre-1930 URM bearing-wall

structure.

Figure D-8 A 1970s renovated façade hides a URM bearing wall structure. 

	 Figure D-9 shows a building façade with typical 1960s material. The side

was painted. Showing through the paint, the horizontal board patterns in

the poured-in-place concrete wall of pre-1940 construction could still be

seen.

D.5 Characteristics of Exposed Construction Materials 

Accurate identification of the FEMA Building Type often depends on the 

ability to recognize the exposed construction material. The screener should 

be familiar with how different materials look on existing buildings as well as 

how they have been installed. 

D-16	 D: Exterior Screening for Seismic System and Age FEMA P-154 
Figure D-9 A concrete shear wall structure with a 1960s renovated façade. 

Brief descriptions of some common materials are included here: 

	 Unreinforced Masonry. Unreinforced masonry walls, when they are not

veneers, are typically several wythes thick (a wythe is a term denoting the

width of one brick). Therefore, header bricks will be apparent in the

exposed surface. Headers are bricks laid with the butt end on the exterior

face, and function to tie wythes of bricks together. Header courses

typically occur every six or seven courses. (See Figures D-10 and D-11.)

Sometimes, URM infill walls will not have header bricks, and the wythes

of brick are held together only by mortar. Needless to say, URM will

look old, and most of the time show wear and weathering. URM may also

have a soft sand-lime mortar which may be detected by scratching with a

knife or key, unless the masonry has been repointed.

Figure D-10 URM wall showing header courses (identified by arrows) and two 

washer plates indicating wall anchors. 

FEMA P-154 D: Exterior Screening for Seismic System and Age D-17 
Figure D-11 Drawing of two types of masonry pattern showing header bricks 

(shown with stipples) (Allen, 1985). 

	 Reinforced Masonry. Most reinforced brick walls are constructed using 

the hollow grout method. Two wythes of bricks are laid with a hollow 

space in between. This space contains the reinforcement steel and is 

grouted afterward (see Figure D-12). This method of construction 

usually does not include header bricks in the wall surface. 

Figure D-12 Diagram of common reinforced masonry construction (Allen, 

1985). Bricks are left out of the bottom course at intervals to 

create cleanout holes, then inserted before grouting. 

	 Masonry Veneer. Masonry veneers can be of several types, including 

prefabricated panels, thin brick texture tiles, and a single wythe of brick 

applied onto the structural backing. Figure D-13 shows brick veneer 

panels. Note the discontinuity of the brick pattern interrupted by the 

vertical gaps. This indicates that the surface is probably a veneer panel. 

D-18	 D: Exterior Screening for Seismic System and Age FEMA P-154 
 

The scupper opening at the top of the wall, probably to let the rainwater on 

the roof to drain, also indicates that this is a thin veneer rather than a solid 

masonry wall. Good places to look for the evidence of veneer tile are at 

door or window openings where the edge of the tile will usually show. 

Figure D-13 Brick veneer panels. 

	 Hollow Clay Tile. The exposed area of a hollow clay tile masonry unit is 

approximately 6 inches by 10 inches and often has strip indentations 

running the length of the tile. They are fragile, unreinforced, have limited 

structural value, and usually are used for non-load-bearing walls, typically 

as infill within a concrete or steel frame. Figure D-14 shows a typical 

wall panel which has been punctured. 

Figure D-14 Hollow clay tile wall with punctured tile. 

FEMA P-154 D: Exterior Screening for Seismic System and Age D-19 
	 False Masonry. Masonry pattern sidings can be made from sheet metal, 

plastic, or asphalt material (see Figures D-15 and D-16). These sidings 

come in sheets and are attached to a structural backing, usually a wood 

frame. These sidings can be detected by looking at the edges and by their 

sound when tapped. 

Figure D-15 Sheet metal siding with masonry pattern. 

Figure D-16 Asphalt siding with brick pattern. 

	 Cast-in-Place Concrete. Cast-in-place concrete, before the 1940s, will 

likely show horizontal patterns from the wooden formwork. The 

formwork was constructed with wood planks, and therefore the concrete 

also will often show the wood grain pattern. Since the plank edges were 

not smooth, the surface will have horizontal lines approximately 4, 6, 8, 

10, or 12 inches apart (see Figure D-17). Newer cast-in-place concrete 

comes in various finishes. The most economic finish is that in which the 

D-20	 D: Exterior Screening for Seismic System and Age FEMA P-154 
concrete is cast against plywood formwork, which will reflect the wood 

grain appearance of plywood, or against metal or plastic-covered wood 

forms, which normally do not show a distinctive pattern. 

Figure D-17 Pre-1940 cast-in-place concrete with formwork pattern. 

FEMA P-154 D: Exterior Screening for Seismic System and Age D-21 

 

Appendix E 

Characteristics and Earthquake 

Performance of FEMA Building 

Types Used in RVS 

E.1 Introduction 

For the purpose of the RVS, building structural framing types have been 

categorized into the 17 FEMA Building Types listed in Section 3.14 and 

shown in Table 3-1. This appendix provides additional information about 

each of these structural types, including detailed descriptions of their 

characteristics, common types of earthquake damage, and common seismic 

retrofitting techniques. See FEMA 547, Techniques for the Seismic 

Rehabilitation of Existing Buildings (FEMA, 2006), for detailed discussion of 

commonly employed seismic retrofit techniques. 

E.2 Wood Frame (W1, W1A, W2) 

E.2.1 Characteristics 

Wood frame structures are usually detached residential dwellings, small 

apartments, commercial buildings or one-story industrial structures. They are 

rarely more than three stories tall, although older buildings may be as high as 

six stories, in rare instances. 

W1 buildings are light wood frame residential and commercial buildings 

smaller than or equal to 5,000 square feet. These are most often single family 

homes, as shown in Figure E-1. W1A buildings are multistory, multi-unit 

residential wood frame buildings, as shown in Figure E-2. In these buildings, 

the upper floors are typically residential, while the first story can be used for 

residential, commercial, or parking space. W2 buildings are light wood 

frame buildings larger than 5,000 square feet as shown in Figure E-3. 

Wood stud walls are typically constructed of 2-inch by 4-inch wood members 

vertically set about 16 inches apart. See Figures E-4 and E-5. These walls 

are braced by plywood or equivalent material, or by diagonals made of wood 

or steel. Many detached single family and low-rise multiple family residences 

in the United States are of stud wall wood frame construction. 

FEMA P-154 E: Characteristics and Earthquake Performance of 

FEMA Building Types Used in RVS 

E-1 
Figure E-1 Single family residence (an example of the W1 identifier, light 

wood frame single- or multiple-family dwellings of one or more 

stories in height). 

Figure E-2 Multi-unit, multistory residential wood frame structure with plan 

areas on each floor of greater than 3,000 square feet (W1A). 

Figure E-3 Larger wood framed structure, typically with room-width spans 

(W2, commercial and industrial wood frame buildings greater 

than 5,000 square feet). 

E-2 E: Characteristics and Earthquake Performance of FEMA P-154
 

FEMA Building Types Used in RVS 
Figure E-4 Drawing of wood stud frame construction (Lagorio et al., 1986). 

FEMA P-154 E: Characteristics and Earthquake Performance of 

FEMA Building Types Used in RVS 

E-3 
 

Figure E-5 Stud wall, wood framed house. 

Post and beam construction, which consists of larger rectangular (6 inch by 6 

inch and larger) or sometimes round wood columns framed together with large 

wood beams or trusses, is not common and is found mostly in older buildings. 

These buildings usually are not residential, but are larger buildings such as 

warehouses, churches, and theaters. 

Timber pole buildings (Figures E-6 and E-7) are a less common form of 

construction found mostly in suburban and rural areas. Generally adequate 

seismically when first built, they are more often subject to wood deterioration 

due to the exposure of the columns, particularly near the ground surface. 

Together with an often-found “soft story” in this building type, this 

deterioration may contribute to unsatisfactory seismic performance. 

Figure E-6 Drawing of timber pole framed house (FEMA, 1987). 

E-4 E: Characteristics and Earthquake Performance of FEMA P-154
 

FEMA Building Types Used in RVS 
 

 

 

Figure E-7 Timber pole framed house. 

In the western United States, it can be assumed that all single detached 

residential houses (i.e., houses with rear and sides separate from adjacent 

structures) are wood stud frame structures unless visual or supplemental 

information indicates otherwise (in the Southwestern United States, for 

example, some residential homes are constructed of adobe, rammed earth, and 

other non-wood materials). Many houses that appear to have brick exterior 

façades are actually wood frame with nonstructural brick veneer or 

brick-patterned synthetic siding. 

In the central and eastern United States, brick walls are usually not veneer. For 

these houses, the brick must be examined closely to verify that it is real brick. 

The thickness of the exterior wall is estimated by looking at a window or door 

opening. If the wall is more than 9 inches from the interior finish to exterior 

surface, then it may be a brick wall. Also, if header bricks exist in the brick 

pattern, then it may be a brick wall. If these features all point to a brick wall, 

the house can be assumed to be a masonry building, and not a wood frame. 

In wetter, humid climates it is common to find homes raised four feet or more 

above the outside grade with this space totally exposed (no foundation walls). 

This allows air flow under the house, to minimize decay and rot problems 

associated with high humidity and enclosed spaces. These houses are 

supported on wood posts and small precast concrete pads or piers. A 

common name for this construction is post and pier construction. 

E.2.2 Typical Earthquake Damage 

Stud wall buildings have performed well in past earthquakes due to inherent 

qualities of the structural system and because they are lightweight and 

low-rise. Cracks in any plaster or stucco may appear, but these seldom 

FEMA P-154 E: Characteristics and Earthquake Performance of 

FEMA Building Types Used in RVS 

E-5 
 

 

 

degrade the strength of the building and are classified as nonstructural 

damage. In fact, this type of damage helps dissipate the earthquake-induced 

energy of the shaking house. The most common type of structural damage in 

older buildings results from a lack of adequate connection between the house 

and the foundation. Houses can slide off their foundations if they are not 

properly bolted to the foundations. This movement (see Figure E-8) results in 

major damage to the building as well as to plumbing and electrical 

connections. Overturning of the entire structure is usually not a problem 

because of the low-rise geometry. In many municipalities, modern codes 

require wood structures to be adequately bolted to their foundations. 

However, the year that this practice was adopted will differ from community 

to community and should be checked. 

Figure E-8 House off its foundation, 1983 Coalinga earthquake. 

Many of the older wood stud frame buildings have no foundations or have 

weak foundations of unreinforced masonry or poorly reinforced concrete. 

These foundations have poor shear resistance to horizontal seismic forces and 

can fail. 

Another problem in older buildings is the stability of cripple walls. Cripple 

walls are short stud walls between the foundation and the first floor level. 

Often these have no in- or out-of-plane bracing and thus may collapse when 

subjected to horizontal earthquake loading. If the cripple walls collapse, the 

house will sustain considerable damage and may collapse. In some older 

E-6 E: Characteristics and Earthquake Performance of FEMA P-154
 

FEMA Building Types Used in RVS 
 

 

 

homes, plywood sheathing nailed to cripple studs may have been used to 

retrofit cripple walls. However, if the sheathing is not nailed adequately to 

the studs and foundation sill plate, the cripple walls will still collapse (see 

Figure E-9). 

Figure E-9 Failed cripple stud wall, 1992 Big Bear earthquake. 

Homes with post and pier perimeter foundations, which are constructed to 

provide adequate air flow under the structure to minimize the potential for 

decay, have little resistance to earthquake forces. When these buildings are 

subjected to strong earthquake ground motions, the posts may rotate or slip of 

the piers and the home will settle to the ground. As with collapsed cripple 

walls, this can be very expensive damage to repair and will result in the home 

building “red-tagged” per the ATC-20 post-earthquake safety evaluation 

procedures (ATC, 1995). See Figure E-9. 

Garages often have a large door opening in the front wall with little or no 

bracing in the remainder of the wall. This wall has almost no resistance to 

lateral forces, which is a problem if a heavy load such as a second story is built 

on top of the garage. Homes built over garages have sustained damage in past 

earthquakes, with many collapses. Therefore, the house-over-garage 

configuration, which is found commonly in low-rise apartment complexes and 

some newer suburban detached dwellings, should be examined more carefully 

and perhaps retrofitted. 

Unreinforced masonry chimneys present a life safety problem. They are 

often inadequately tied to the house, and therefore fall when strongly shaken. 

On the other hand, chimneys of reinforced masonry generally perform well. 

Some wood frame structures, especially older buildings in the eastern United 

States, have masonry veneers that may represent another hazard. The veneer 

usually consists of one wythe of brick (a wythe is a term denoting the width of 

one brick) attached to the stud wall. In older buildings, the veneer is either 

FEMA P-154 E: Characteristics and Earthquake Performance of 

FEMA Building Types Used in RVS 

E-7 
insufficiently attached or has poor quality mortar, which often results in 

peeling of the veneer during moderate and large earthquakes. 

W1A buildings can often have soft stories created by large openings at the 

ground floor for commercial space, parking, or other uses. As described in 

FEMA 547 (FEMA, 2006), “when an open front occurs, the diaphragm is 

required to transmit forces to other lines by rotation, creating torsional 

building behavior. This behavior is particularly critical when an exterior wall 

is provided at upper stories but discontinued in the first story, as this creates a 

significant discontinuity in the load path at the lowest story.” W1A buildings 

with parking at the first floor are sometimes referred to as tuckunders. These 

buildings have collapsed in past earthquakes causing loss of life. 

If adequately braced, post and beam buildings (not buildings with post and 

pier foundations) tend to perform well in earthquakes. However, walls often 

do not have sufficient bracing to resist horizontal motion and thus they may 

deform excessively. 

E.2.3 Common Retrofit Techniques 

In recent years, especially as a result of the Northridge earthquake, emphasis 

has been placed on addressing the common problems associated with 

light-wood framing. This work has concentrated mainly in the western 

United States with single-family residences. 

The retrofit techniques focus on houses with continuous perimeter foundations 

and cripple walls. The retrofit work consists of bolting the house to the 

foundation and providing plywood or other wood sheathing materials to the 

cripple walls to strengthen them (see Figure E-10). This is the most 

cost-effective retrofit work that can be done on a single-family residence. 

Figure E-10 Seismic strengthening of a cripple wall, with plywood sheathing. 

E-8 E: Characteristics and Earthquake Performance of FEMA P-154
 

FEMA Building Types Used in RVS 
 

 

 

 

 

Other common W1 retrofit techniques include bracing of masonry chimneys 

and improved anchorage to the foundation, particularly for homes on sloping 

hills. 

W1A open front buildings can be strengthened by installing steel moment 

frames or by enhancing the existing walls and diaphragms. 

W2 buildings can be strengthened with braced frames or by adding plywood to 

existing walls and diaphragms. 

Little work has been done in retrofitting timber pole buildings or post and pier 

construction. In timber pole buildings retrofit techniques are focused on 

providing resistance to lateral forces by bracing (applying sheathing) to 

interior walls, thus creating a continuous load path to the ground. For homes 

with post and pier perimeter foundations, the work has focused on providing 

partial foundations and bracing to carry the earthquake loads. 

E.3 Steel Frames (S1, S2) 

E.3.1 Characteristics 

Steel frame buildings generally may be classified as either moment-resisting 

frames or braced frames, based on their seismic force-resisting systems. 

Moment-resisting frames resist lateral loads and deformations by the bending 

stiffness of the beams and columns (there is no diagonal bracing). In 

concentric braced frames, the diagonal braces are connected, at each end, to 

the joints where beams and columns meet. The lateral forces or loads are 

resisted by the tensile and compressive strength of the bracing. In eccentric 

braced frames, the bracing is slightly offset from the main beam-to-column 

connections, and the short section of beam is expected to deform significantly 

in bending under major seismic forces, thereby dissipating a considerable 

portion of the energy of the vibrating building. Each type of steel frame is 

discussed below. 

E.3.1.1 Moment-Resisting Steel Frame 

Typical steel moment-resisting frame structures usually have similar bay 

widths in both the transverse and longitudinal direction, around 20-30 feet 

(Figure E-11). The load-bearing frame consists of beams and columns 

distributed throughout the building. 

The floor diaphragms are usually concrete, sometimes over steel decking. 

Moment-resisting frame structures built since 1950 often incorporate 

prefabricated panels hung onto the structural frame as the exterior finish. 

FEMA P-154 E: Characteristics and Earthquake Performance of 

FEMA Building Types Used in RVS 

E-9 
Figure E-11 Drawing of steel moment-resisting frame building (Steinbrugge, 1982). 

These panels may be precast concrete, stone or masonry veneer, metal, glass or 

plastic. 

This structural type is used for commercial, institutional, and other public 

buildings. It is seldom used for low-rise residential buildings. 

Steel frame structures built before 1945 are usually clad or infilled with 

unreinforced masonry, such as bricks, hollow clay tiles and terra cotta tiles, 

and therefore should be classified as S5 structures (see Section E.6 for a 

detailed discussion). Other frame buildings of this period are encased in 

concrete. Wood or concrete floor diaphragms are common for these older 

buildings. 

E.3.1.2 Braced Steel Frame 

Braced steel frame structures (Figures E-12 and E-13) have been built since 

the late 1800s with similar usage and exterior finish as the steel moment-frame 

buildings. Braced frames are sometimes used for long and narrow buildings 

because of their stiffness. Although these buildings are braced with diagonal 

E-10 E: Characteristics and Earthquake Performance of FEMA P-154
 

FEMA Building Types Used in RVS 
 

members, the bracing members usually cannot be detected from the building 

exterior. 

Figure E-12 Braced frame configurations (FEMA, 1987). 

Figure E-13 Braced steel frame, with chevron and diagonal braces. The braces 

and steel frames are usually covered by finish material after the 

steel is erected. 

From the building exterior, it is usually difficult to tell the difference between 

steel moment frames, braced frames, and frames with shear walls. In most 

modern buildings, the bracing or shear walls are located in the interior or 

covered by cladding material. Figure E-14 shows heavy diagonal bracing 

located at the side walls of a high rise building, which will be subsequently 

covered by finish materials and will not be apparent. In fact, it is difficult to 

differentiate steel frame structures and concrete frame structures from the 

exterior. Most of the time, the structural members are clad in finish material. 

FEMA P-154 E: Characteristics and Earthquake Performance of 

FEMA Building Types Used in RVS 

E-11 
 

 

Figure E-14 Chevron bracing in steel building under construction. 

In older buildings, steel members can also be encased in concrete. There are 

no positive ways of distinguishing these various frame types except in the two 

cases listed below: 

	 If a building can be determined to be a braced frame, it is probably a steel 

structure. 

	 If exposed steel beams and columns can be seen, then the steel frame 

structure is apparent. (Especially in older structures, a structural frame 

which appears to be concrete may actually be a steel frame encased in 

concrete.) 

E.3.2 Typical Earthquake Damage 

Steel frame buildings tend to be generally satisfactory in their earthquake 

resistance, because of their strength, flexibility and lightness. Collapse in 

earthquakes has been very rare, although steel frame buildings did collapse, 

for example, in the 1985 Mexico City earthquake. In the United States, these 

buildings have performed well, and probably will not collapse unless 

subjected to sufficiently severe ground shaking. The 1994 Northridge and 

1995 Kobe earthquakes showed that steel frame buildings (in particular S1 

moment-frame) were vulnerable to severe earthquake damage. Though none 

of the damaged buildings collapsed, they were rendered unsafe until repaired. 

The damage took the form of broken welded connections between the beams 

E-12 E: Characteristics and Earthquake Performance of FEMA P-154
 

FEMA Building Types Used in RVS 
and columns. Cracks in the welds began inside the welds where the beam 

flanges were welded to the column flanges. These cracks, in some cases, 

broke the welds or propagated into the column flange, “tearing” the flange. 

The damage was found in those buildings that experienced ground 

accelerations of approximately 20% of gravity (20%g) or greater. Since 1994 

Northridge, many cities that experienced large earthquakes in the recent past 

have instituted an inspection program to determine if any steel frames were 

damaged. Since steel frames are usually covered with a finish material, it is 

difficult to find damage to the joints. The process requires removal of the 

finishes and removal of fireproofing just to see the joint. 

Possible damage includes the following: 

	 Nonstructural damage resulting from excessive deflections in frame 

structures can occur to elements such as interior partitions, equipment, and 

exterior cladding. Damage to nonstructural elements was the reason for 

the discovery of damage to moment frames as a result of the 1994 

Northridge earthquake. 

	 Cladding and exterior finish material can fall if insufficiently or 

incorrectly connected. 

	 Plastic deformation of structural members can cause permanent 

displacements. 

	 Pounding with adjacent structures can occur. 

E.3.3 Common Retrofit Techniques 

As a result of the 1994 Northridge earthquake many steel frame buildings, 

primarily steel moment frames, have been retrofitted to address the problems 

discovered. The process is essentially to redo the connections, ensuring that 

cracks do not occur in the welds. There is careful inspection of the welding 

process and the electrodes during construction. Where possible, existing full 

penetration welds of the beams to the columns are changed so more fillet 

welding is used. This means that less heat is used in the welding process and 

consequently there is less potential for damage. Other methods include 

reducing welding to an absolute minimum by developing bolted connections 

or ensuring that the connection plates will yield (stretch permanently) before 

the welds will break. Other possibilities for retrofitting moment frames are to 

convert them to braced frames or add concrete shear walls. Sometimes older 

column splices will need strengthening as well. 

FEMA P-154 E: Characteristics and Earthquake Performance of 

FEMA Building Types Used in RVS 

E-13 
 

 

 

The kind of damage discovered was not limited to moment frames, although 

they were the most affected. Some braced frames were found to have damage 

to the brace connections, especially at lower levels. 

Structural types other than steel frames are sometimes retrofitted using steel 

frames, as shown for the concrete structure in Figure E-15. 

Figure E-15 Retrofit of a concrete parking structure using exterior X-braced 

steel frames. 

Probably the most common use of steel frames for retrofit is in unreinforced 

masonry bearing wall buildings (URM). Steel frames are typically used at 

the storefront windows as there is no available horizontal resistance provided 

by the windows in their plane. Frames can be used throughout the first floor 

perimeter when the floor area needs to be open, as in a restaurant. See Figure 

E-16. When a building is encountered with this type of retrofit scheme, the 

building is still considered a URM building, but on the Level 2 screening a 

Score Modifier for a comprehensive retrofit can be given. 

E.4 Light Metal (S3) 

E.4.1 Characteristics 

Most light metal buildings existing today were built after 1950 (Figure E-17). 

They are used for agricultural structures, industrial factories, and warehouses. 

They are typically one story in height, sometimes without interior columns, 

and often enclose a large floor area. Construction is typically of steel frames 

E-14 E: Characteristics and Earthquake Performance of FEMA P-154
 

FEMA Building Types Used in RVS 
Figure E-16 Use of a braced frame to rehabilitate an unreinforced masonry 

building. 

Figure E-17 Drawing of light metal construction. 

FEMA P-154 E: Characteristics and Earthquake Performance of 

FEMA Building Types Used in RVS 

E-15 
spanning the short dimension of the building, resisting lateral forces as 

moment frames. Forces in the long direction are usually resisted by diagonal 

steel rod bracing. These buildings are usually clad with lightweight metal or 

asbestos-reinforced concrete siding, often corrugated. 

To identify this construction type, the screener should look for the following 

characteristics: 

	 Light metal buildings are typically characterized by industrial corrugated 

sheet metal or asbestos-reinforced cement siding. The term, “metal 

building panels” should not be confused with “corrugated sheet metal 

siding.” The former are prefabricated cladding units usually used for 

large office buildings. Corrugated sheet metal siding is a thin sheet 

material usually fastened to purlins, which in turn span between columns. 

If this sheet cladding is present, the screener should examine closely the 

fasteners used. If the heads of sheet metal screws can be seen in 

horizontal rows, the building is most likely a light metal structure. 

Because the typical structural system consists of moment frames in the 

transverse direction and frames braced with diagonal steel rods in the 

longitudinal direction, light metal buildings often have low-pitched roofs 

without parapets or overhangs (Figure E-18). Most of these buildings are 

prefabricated, so the buildings tend to be rectangular in plan, without 

many corners. 

Figure E-18 Prefabricated metal building (S3, light metal building). 

	 These buildings generally have only a few windows, as it is difficult to 

detail a window in the sheet metal system. 

E-16 E: Characteristics and Earthquake Performance of FEMA P-154
 

FEMA Building Types Used in RVS 
 

 

 

 

 

	 The screener should look for signs of a metal building, and should knock 

on the siding to see if it sounds hollow. Door openings should be 

inspected for exposed steel members. If a gap, or light, can be seen where 

the siding meets the ground, it is certainly light metal or wood frame. For 

the best indication, an interior inspection will confirm the structural 

skeleton, because most of these buildings do not have interior finishes. 

E.4.2 Typical Earthquake Damage 

Because these building are low-rise, lightweight, and constructed of steel 

members, they usually perform relatively well in earthquakes. Collapses do 

not usually occur. Some typical problems are listed below: 

	 Insufficient capacity of tension braces can lead to their elongation or 

failure, and, in turn, building damage. 

	 Inadequate connection to the foundation can allow the building columns to 

slide. 

	 Loss of the cladding can occur. 

E.5 Steel Frame with Concrete Shear Wall (S4) 

E.5.1 Characteristics 

The construction of this structure type (Figure E-19) is similar to that of the 

steel moment-resisting frame in that a matrix of steel columns and girders is 

distributed throughout the structure. The joints, however, are not designed 

for moment resistance, and the lateral forces are resisted by concrete shear 

walls. 

It is often difficult to differentiate visually between a steel frame with concrete 

shear walls and one without, because interior shear walls will often be covered 

by interior finishes and will look like interior nonstructural partitions. For the 

purposes of an RVS, unless the shear wall is identifiable from the exterior (i.e., 

a raw concrete finish was part of the architectural aesthetic of the building, and 

was left exposed), this building cannot be identified accurately. Figure E-20 

shows a structure with such an exposed shear wall. Figure E-21 is a close-up 

of shear wall damage. 

E.5.2 Typical Earthquake Damage 

The shear walls can be part of the elevator and service core or part of the 

exterior or interior walls. This type of structure performs as well in 

earthquakes as other steel buildings. Some typical types of damage, other 

than nonstructural damage and pounding, are: 

FEMA P-154 E: Characteristics and Earthquake Performance of 

FEMA Building Types Used in RVS 

E-17 
Figure E-19 Drawing of steel frame with interior concrete shear walls 

(Steinbrugge, 1982). 

Figure E-20 Concrete shear wall on building exterior. 

E-18 E: Characteristics and Earthquake Performance of FEMA P-154
 

FEMA Building Types Used in RVS 
Figure E-21	 Close-up of exterior shear wall damage during a major 

earthquake. 

	 Shear cracking and distress that occur around openings in concrete shear 

walls. 

	 Wall shear failures that occur at stresses below expected capacity due to 

wall construction joints acting as weak planes. 

	 Wall bending failures that occur due to insufficient chord steel lap lengths. 

E.5.3 Common Retrofit Techniques 

Retrofit techniques for S4 buildings are similar to those for concrete shear wall 

buildings (C2). 

E.6 Steel Frame with Unreinforced Masonry Infill (S5) 

E.6.1 Characteristics 

This construction type (Figures E-22 and E-23) consists of a steel structural 

frame and walls “infilled” with unreinforced masonry (URM). In older 

buildings, the floor diaphragms are often wood. Later buildings have 

reinforced concrete floors. Because of the masonry infill, the structure tends 

to be stiff. Because the steel frame in an older building is covered by 

unreinforced masonry for fire protection, it is easy to confuse this type of 

building with URM bearing wall structures. Further, because the steel 

columns are relatively thin, they may be hidden in walls. 

An apparently solid masonry wall may enclose a series of steel columns and 

girders. These infill walls are usually two or three wythes thick. Therefore, 

FEMA P-154 E: Characteristics and Earthquake Performance of 

FEMA Building Types Used in RVS 

E-19 
Figure E-22 Drawing of steel frame with URM infill (Lagorio et al., 1986). 

E-20 E: Characteristics and Earthquake Performance of FEMA P-154
 

FEMA Building Types Used in RVS 
 

Figure E-23 Example of steel frame with URM infill walls (S5). 

header bricks will sometimes be present and thus mislead the screener into 

thinking the building is a URM bearing wall structure, rather than infill. 

Often in these structures the infill and veneer masonry is exposed. Otherwise, 

masonry may be obscured by cladding in buildings, especially those that have 

undergone renovation. 

When a masonry building is encountered, the screener should first attempt to 

determine if the masonry is reinforced, by checking the date of construction, 

although this is only a rough guide. A clearer indication of a steel frame 

structure with URM infill is when the building exhibits the characteristics of a 

frame structure of type S1 or S2. One can assume all frame buildings clad in 

brick and constructed prior to about 1940 are of this type. 

Older frame buildings may be of several types: steel frame encased with URM, 

steel frame encased with concrete, and concrete frame. Sometimes older 

buildings have decorative cladding such as terra cotta or stone veneer. 

Veneers may obscure all evidence of URM. In that case, the structural type 

cannot be determined. However, if there is evidence that a large amount of 

FEMA P-154 E: Characteristics and Earthquake Performance of 

FEMA Building Types Used in RVS 

E-21 
 

 

 

 

concrete is used in the building (for example, a rear wall constructed of 

concrete), then it is unlikely that the building has URM infill. 

When the screener cannot be sure if the building is a frame or has bearing 

walls, two clues may help: the thickness of the walls and the height. Because 

infill walls are constructed of two or three wythes of bricks, they should be 

approximately 9 inches thick (2 wythes). Furthermore, the thickness of the 

wall will not increase in the lower stories, because the structural frame is 

carrying the load. For buildings over six stories tall, URM is infill or veneer, 

because URM bearing wall structures are seldom this tall and, if so, they will 

have extremely thick walls in the lower stories. 

E.6.2 Typical Earthquake Damage 

In major earthquakes, the infill walls may suffer substantial cracking and 

deterioration from in-plane or out-of-plane deformation, thus reducing the 

in-plane wall stiffness. This in turn puts additional demand on the frame. 

Some of the walls may fail while others remain intact, which may result in 

torsion or soft story problems. 

The hazard from falling masonry is significant as these buildings can be taller 

than 20 stories. As described below, typical damage results from a variety of 

factors. 

	 Infill walls tend to buckle and fall out-of-plane when subjected to strong 

lateral forces. Because infill walls are non-load-bearing, they tend to be 

thin (around 9”) and cannot rely on the additional shear strength that 

accompanies vertical compressive loads. 

	 Veneer masonry around columns or beams is usually poorly anchored to 

the structural members and can disengage and fall. 

	 Interior infill partitions and other nonstructural elements can be severely 

damaged and collapse. 

	 If stories above the first are infilled, but the first is not, then a soft story 

exists, and the difference in stiffness creates a large demand at the ground 

floor columns, causing structural damage. 

	 When the earthquake forces are sufficiently high, the steel frame itself can 

fail locally. Connections between members are usually not designed for 

high lateral loads (except in tall buildings) and this can lead to damage of 

these connections. Complete collapse has seldom occurred, but cannot 

be ruled out. 

E-22 E: Characteristics and Earthquake Performance of FEMA P-154
 

FEMA Building Types Used in RVS 
 

 

E.6.3 Common Retrofit Techniques 

Retrofit techniques for this structural type have focused on the expected 

damage. By far the most significant problem, and that which is addressed in 

most retrofit schemes, is failure of the infill wall out of its plane. This failure 

presents a significant life safety hazard to individuals on the exterior of the 

building, especially those who manage to exit the building during the 

earthquake. To remedy this problem, anchorage connections are developed 

to tie the masonry infill to the floors and roof of the structure. 

Another significant problem is the inherent lack of shear strength throughout 

the building. Some of the retrofit techniques employed include the following: 

	 Shotcrete (with pneumatically placed concrete) the interior faces of the 

masonry wall, creating reinforced concrete shear elements. 

	 Provide cross bracing in steel frames or fully strengthen the connections to 

create moment frames. In this latter case, the frames are still not 

sufficient to resist all the lateral forces, and reliance on the infill walls is 

necessary to provide adequate strength. 

E.7 Concrete Moment-Resisting Frame (C1) 

E.7.1 Characteristics 

Concrete moment-resisting frame construction consists of concrete beams and 

columns that resist both lateral and vertical loads (see Figure E-24). There 

may be a few bays infilled with masonry, but if there is more extensive infill, it 

would be categorized as a C3 building type. A fundamental factor in the 

seismic performance of concrete moment-resisting frames is the presence or 

absence of ductile detailing. Hence, several construction subtypes fall under 

this category: 

	 nonductile reinforced-concrete frames with unreinforced infill walls, 

	 nonductile reinforced-concrete frames with reinforced infill walls, 

	 nonductile reinforced-concrete frames, and 

	 ductile reinforced-concrete frames. 

Ductile detailing refers to the presence of special steel reinforcing within 

concrete beams and columns. The special reinforcement provides 

confinement of the concrete, permitting good performance in the members 

beyond the elastic capacity, primarily in bending. Due to this confinement, 

disintegration of the concrete is delayed, and the concrete retains its strength 

for more cycles of loading (i.e., the ductility is increased). See Figure E-25 

for a dramatic example of ductility in concrete. 

FEMA P-154 E: Characteristics and Earthquake Performance of 

FEMA Building Types Used in RVS 

E-23 
Figure E-24 Drawing of concrete moment-resisting frame building (Lagorio et al., 1986). 

E-24 E: Characteristics and Earthquake Performance of FEMA P-154
 

FEMA Building Types Used in RVS 
Figure E-25 Extreme example of ductility in concrete, 1994 Northridge 

earthquake. 

Ductile detailing (Figure E-26) has been practiced in high-seismicity areas 

since 1967, when ductility requirements were first introduced into the Uniform 

Building Code (the adoption and enforcement of ductility requirements in a 

given jurisdiction may be later, however). Prior to that time, nonductile or 

ordinary concrete moment-resisting frames were the norm (and still are, for 

moderate seismic areas). In high-seismicity areas, additional tie reinforcing 

was required following the 1971 San Fernando earthquake and appeared in the 

Uniform Building Code in 1976. Additional code requirements to improve 

ductility were added following the 1994 Northridge earthquake. 

In many low-seismicity areas of the United States, nonductile concrete frames 

of the first three types continue to be built. This group includes large 

multistory commercial, institutional, and residential buildings constructed 

using flat slab frames, waffle slab frames, and the standard beam-and-column 

frames. 

These structures generally are more massive than steel-frame buildings, are 

underreinforced (i.e., have insufficient reinforcing steel embedded in the 

concrete) and display low ductility. 

This building type is difficult to differentiate from steel moment-resisting 

frames unless the structural concrete has been left relatively exposed (see 

Figure E-27). Although a steel frame may be encased in concrete and appear 

to be a concrete frame, this is seldom the case for modern buildings (post 

1940s). For the purpose of the RVS procedures, it can be assumed that all 

exposed concrete frames are concrete and not steel frames. 

FEMA P-154 E: Characteristics and Earthquake Performance of 

FEMA Building Types Used in RVS 

E-25 
Figure E-26	 Example of ductile reinforced concrete column, 1994 Northridge 

earthquake; horizontal ties would need to be closer for greater 

demands. 

Figure E-27 Concrete moment-resisting frame building (C1) with exposed 

concrete, deep beams, wide columns (and with architectural 

window framing). 

E-26 E: Characteristics and Earthquake Performance of FEMA P-154
 

FEMA Building Types Used in RVS 
E.7.2 Typical Earthquake Damage 

Under high amplitude cyclic loading, lack of confinement will result in rapid 

disintegration of nonductile concrete members, with ensuing brittle failure and 

possible building collapse (see Figure E-28). 

Causes and types of damage include: 

	 Excessive tie spacing in columns can lead to a lack of concrete 

confinement and shear failure. 

	 Placement of inadequate rebar splices all at the same location in a column 

can lead to column failure. 

	 Insufficient shear strength in columns can lead to shear failure prior to the 

full development of moment hinge capacity. 

	 Insufficient shear tie anchorage can prevent the column from developing 

its full shear capacity. 

	 Lack of continuous beam reinforcement can result in unexpected hinge 

formation during load reversal. 

	 Inadequate reinforcing of beam-column joints or the positioning of beam 

bar splices at columns can lead to failures. 

Figure E-28 Locations of failures at beam-to-column joints in nonductile 

frames, 1994 Northridge earthquake. 

FEMA P-154 E: Characteristics and Earthquake Performance of 

FEMA Building Types Used in RVS 

E-27 
 

	 The relatively low stiffness of the frame can lead to substantial 

nonstructural damage. 

	 Pounding damage with adjacent buildings can occur. 

E.7.3 Common Retrofit Techniques 

Retrofit techniques for reinforced concrete frame buildings depend on the 

extent to which the frame meets ductility requirements. The costs associated 

with the upgrading an existing, conventional beam-column framing system to 

meet the minimum standards for ductility are high, and this approach is 

usually not cost-effective. The most practical and cost-effective solution is to 

add a system of shear walls or braced frames to provide the required seismic 

resistance (ATC, 1992). 

In some cases, where only added ductility is needed, columns and/or beams 

are wrapped with steel jackets or fiber reinforced polymer material. 

Occasionally, this has also been done by added concrete. 

The outside cover of concrete (a couple of inches) is removed, exposing the 

reinforcing ties. Additional ties are added with their ends embedded into the 

core of the column. The exterior concrete is then replaced. This process 

results in a detail that provides a reasonable amount of ductility but not as 

much as there would have been had the ductility been provided in the original 

design. 

E.8 Concrete Shear Wall (C2) 

E.8.1 Characteristics 

This category consists of buildings with a perimeter concrete bearing wall 

structural system or frame structures with shear walls (Figure E-29). The 

structure, including the usual concrete floor diaphragms, is typically cast in 

place. Before the 1940s, bearing wall systems were used in schools, 

churches, and industrial buildings. Concrete shear wall buildings constructed 

since the early 1950s are institutional, commercial, and residential buildings, 

ranging from one to more than thirty stories. Frame buildings with shear 

walls tend to be commercial and industrial. A common example of the latter 

type is a warehouse with interior frames and perimeter concrete walls. 

Residential buildings of this type are often mid-rise towers. The shear walls 

in these newer buildings can be located along the perimeter, as interior 

partitions, or around the service core. 

Frame structures with interior shear walls are difficult to identify positively. 

When the building is clearly a box-like bearing wall structure, it is probably a 

E-28 E: Characteristics and Earthquake Performance of FEMA P-154
 

FEMA Building Types Used in RVS 
 

Figure E-29 Drawing of concrete shear wall building (Lagorio et al., 1986). 

shear wall structure. Concrete shear wall buildings are usually cast in place. 

The screener should look for signs of cast-in-place concrete. In concrete 

bearing wall structures, the wall thickness ranges from 6 to 10 inches and is 

thin in comparison to that of masonry bearing wall structures. 

FEMA P-154 E: Characteristics and Earthquake Performance of 

FEMA Building Types Used in RVS 

E-29 
 

 

E.8.2 Typical Types of Earthquake Damage 

This building type generally performs better than concrete frame buildings. 

The buildings are heavy compared with steel frame buildings, but they are also 

stiff due to the presence of the shear walls. Damage commonly observed in 

taller buildings is caused by vertical discontinuities, pounding, and irregular 

configuration. Other damage specific to this building type includes the 

following. 

	 During large seismic events, shear cracking and distress can occur around 

openings in concrete shear walls and in spandrel beams and link beams 

between shear walls (see Figures E-30 and E-31). 

	 Shear failure can occur at wall construction joints usually at a load level 

below the expected capacity. 

	 Bending failures can result from insufficient vertical chord steel and 

insufficient lap lengths at the ends of the walls. 

Figure E-30 Tall concrete shear wall building: walls connected by damaged 

spandrel beams. 

E-30 E: Characteristics and Earthquake Performance of FEMA P-154
 

FEMA Building Types Used in RVS 
Figure E-31 Shear wall damage, 1989 Loma Prieta earthquake. 

E.8.3 Common Retrofit Techniques 

Reinforced concrete shear wall buildings can be rehabilitated in a variety of 

ways. Techniques include: (1) reinforcing existing walls in shear by applying 

a layer of shotcrete or poured concrete; (2) where feasible, filling existing 

window or door openings with concrete to add shear strength and eliminate 

critical bending stresses at the edge of openings; (3) reinforcing narrow 

overstressed shear panels in in-plane bending by adding reinforced boundary 

elements; and (4) enhancing the shear strength of the shear walls with a fiber 

reinforcing polymer overlay. 

E.9 Concrete Frame with Unreinforced Masonry Infill (C3) 

E.9.1 Characteristics 

These buildings (Figures E-32 and E-33) have been, and continue to be, built 

in regions where unreinforced masonry (URM) has not been eliminated by 

code. These buildings were generally built before 1940 in high-seismicity 

regions and may continue to be built in other regions. Several construction 

subtypes fall under this category: nonductile reinforced-concrete frames with 

unreinforced infill walls, and nonductile reinforced-concrete frames with 

reinforced infill walls. 

FEMA P-154 E: Characteristics and Earthquake Performance of 

FEMA Building Types Used in RVS 

E-31 
Figure E-32 Concrete frame with URM infill. 

Figure E-33	 C3 building and detail showing concrete frame with URM infill 

(left wall), and face brick (right wall). 

The first step in identification is to determine if the structure is old enough to 

contain URM. In contrast to steel frames with URM infill, concrete frames 

with URM infill usually show clear evidence of the concrete frames. This is 

particularly true for industrial buildings and can usually be observed at the side 

E-32 E: Characteristics and Earthquake Performance of FEMA P-154
 

FEMA Building Types Used in RVS 
 

 

or rear of commercial buildings. The concrete columns and beams are 

relatively large and are usually not covered by masonry but left exposed. 

A case in which URM infill cannot be readily identified is the commercial 

building with large windows on all sides; these buildings may have interior 

URM partitions. Another difficult case occurs when the exterior walls are 

covered by decorative tile or stone veneer. The infill material can be URM or 

a thin concrete infill. 

E.9.2 Typical Earthquake Damage 

The hazards of these buildings, which in the western United States are often 

older, are similar to and perhaps more severe than those of the newer concrete 

frames. Where URM infill is present, a falling hazard exists. The failure 

mechanisms of URM infill in a concrete frame are generally the same as URM 

infill in a steel frame. 

E.9.3 Common Retrofit Techniques 

Retrofit of unreinforced masonry infill in a concrete frame is identical to that 

of the URM infill in a steel frame. See Section E.6.3. Anchorage of the wall 

panels for out-of-plane forces is the key component, followed by providing 

sufficient shear strength in the building. 

E.10 Tilt-up Structures (PC1) 

E.10.1 Characteristics 

In traditional tilt-up buildings (Figures E-34 through E-36), concrete wall 

panels are cast on the ground and then tilted upward into their final positions. 

More recently, wall panels are fabricated off-site and trucked to the site. 

Tilt-up buildings are an inexpensive form of light industrial and commercial 

construction and have become increasingly popular in the western and central 

United States since the 1940s. They are typically one and sometimes two 

stories high and typically have a simple rectangular plan. The walls are the 

seismic force-resisting system. The roof can be a plywood diaphragm carried 

on wood purlins and glued laminated (glulam) wood beams or a light steel 

deck and joist system, supported in the interior of the building on steel pipe 

columns. The wall panels are attached to concrete cast-in-place pilasters or to 

steel columns, or the joint is simply closed with a later concrete pour. These 

joints are typically spaced about 20 feet apart. 

FEMA P-154 E: Characteristics and Earthquake Performance of 

FEMA Building Types Used in RVS 

E-33 
Figure E-34 Drawing of tilt-up construction typical of the western United States. Tilt-up construction in 

the eastern United States may incorporate a steel frame (Lagorio et al., 1986). 

The major defect in existing tilt-ups is a lack of positive anchorage between 

wall and diaphragm, which has been corrected since about 1973 in the western 

United States. 

In the western United States, it can be assumed that all one-story concrete 

industrial warehouses with flat roofs built after 1950 are tilt-ups unless 

supplementary information indicates otherwise. 

E-34 E: Characteristics and Earthquake Performance of FEMA P-154
 

FEMA Building Types Used in RVS 
Figure E-35 Tilt-up industrial building, 1970s. 

Figure E-36 Tilt-up industrial building, mid- to late-1980s. 

E.10.2 Typical Earthquake Damage 

Before 1973 in the western United States, many tilt-up buildings did not have 

sufficiently strong connections or anchors between the walls and the roof and 

floor diaphragms. The anchorage typically was nothing more than the nailing 

of the plywood roof sheathing to the wood ledgers supporting the framing. 

During an earthquake, the weak anchorage broke the ledgers, resulting in the 

panels falling and the supported framing collapsing. When mechanical 

FEMA P-154 E: Characteristics and Earthquake Performance of 

FEMA Building Types Used in RVS 

E-35 
 

 

anchors were used, they pulled out of the walls or split the wood members to 

which they were attached, causing the floors or roofs to collapse. See Figures 

E-37 and E-38. The connections between the concrete panels are also 

vulnerable to failure. Without these connections, the building loses much of 

its lateral-force-resisting capacity. For these reasons, many tilt-up buildings 

were damaged in the 1971 San Fernando earthquake. Since 1973, tilt-up 

construction practices have changed in California and other high-seismicity 

regions, requiring positive wall-diaphragm connection (Such requirements 

may not have yet been made in other regions of the country). However, a 

large number of these older, pre-1970s-vintage tilt-up buildings still exist and 

have not been rehabilitated to correct this wall-anchor defect. Damage to 

these buildings was observed again in the 1987 Whittier earthquake, 1989 

Loma Prieta earthquake, and the 1994 Northridge earthquake. These 

buildings are a prime source of seismic hazard. In areas of low or moderate 

seismicity, inadequate wall anchor details continue to be used. Severe 

ground shaking in such an area may produce major damage in tilt-up 

buildings. 

Figure E-37 Tilt-up construction anchorage failure. 

E.10.3 Common Retrofit Techniques 

The retrofit of tilt-up buildings is relatively easy and inexpensive. The most 

common form of retrofit is to provide a positive anchorage connection at the 

roof and wall intersection (see Figure E-39). This is usually done by using 

pre-fabricated metal hardware attached to the framing member and to a bolt 

that is installed through the wall. On the outside of the wall a large washer 

plate is used. 

E-36 E: Characteristics and Earthquake Performance of FEMA P-154
 

FEMA Building Types Used in RVS 
 

Figure E-38	 Result of failure of the roof beam anchorage to the wall in tilt-up 

building. 

Accompanying the anchorage retrofit is the addition of ties across the building 

to develop the anchorage forces from the wall panels fully into the diaphragm. 

This is accomplished by interconnecting framing members from one side of 

the building to the other, and then increasing the connections of the diaphragm 

(usually wood) to develop the additional forces. 

E.11 Precast Concrete Frame (PC2) 

E.11.1 Characteristics 

Precast concrete frame construction, first developed in the 1930s, was not 

widely used until the 1960s. The precast frame (Figure E-40) is essentially a 

post and beam system in concrete where columns, beams and slabs are 

prefabricated and assembled on site. Various types of members are used. 

Vertical-load-carrying elements may be “T”sections, cross shapes, or arches 

and are often more than one story in height. Beams are often “T” sections and 

double T sections, or rectangular sections. Prestressing of the members, 

including pretensioning and post-tensioning, is often employed. The 

identification of this structure type cannot rely solely on construction date, 

although most precast concrete frame structures were constructed after 1960. 

Some typical characteristics are the following: 

 Precast concrete, in general, is of a higher quality and precision compared 

to cast-in-place concrete. It is also available in a greater range of textures 

and finishes. Many newer concrete and steel buildings have precast 

concrete panels and column covers as an exterior finish (See Figure E-41). 

FEMA P-154 E: Characteristics and Earthquake Performance of 

FEMA Building Types Used in RVS 

E-37 
 

Figure E-39 Newly installed anchorage of roof beam to wall in tilt-up building. 

Thus, the presence of precast concrete does not necessarily mean that it is 

a precast concrete frame. 

	 Precast concrete frames are, in essence, post and beam construction in 

concrete. Therefore, when a concrete structure displays the features of a 

post-and-beam system, it is most likely that it is a precast concrete frame. 

It is usually not economical for a conventional cast-in-place concrete 

frame to look like a post-and-beam system. Features of a precast 

concrete post-and-beam system include: 

E-38 E: Characteristics and Earthquake Performance of FEMA P-154
 

FEMA Building Types Used in RVS 
Figure E-40 Drawing of precast concrete frame building (Lagorio et al., 1986). 

FEMA P-154 E: Characteristics and Earthquake Performance of 

FEMA Building Types Used in RVS 

E-39 
 

Figure E-41 Typical precast column cover on a steel or concrete moment 

frame. 

o	 exposed ends of beams and girders that project beyond their supports 

or project away from the building surface, 

o	 the absence of small joists, and 

o	 beams sitting on top of girders rather than meeting at a monolithic 

joint (see Figure E-42). 

Figure E-42	 Exposed precast double-Tee sections and overlapping beams are 

indicative of precast frames. 

The presence of precast structural components is usually a good indication of 

this system, although these components are also used in mixed construction. 

Precast structural components come in a variety of shapes and sizes. The 

most common types are sometimes difficult to detect from the street. Less 

common but more obvious examples include the following. 

E-40 E: Characteristics and Earthquake Performance of FEMA P-154
 

FEMA Building Types Used in RVS 
	 T-sections or double T’s. These are deep beams with thin webs and 

flanges and with large span capacities. (Figure E-43 shows one end of a 

double-T beam as it is lowered onto its seat.) 

Figure E-43 Example of precast double “T” section during installation. 

	 Cross or T-shaped units of partial columns and beams. These are 

structural units for constructing moment-resisting frames. They are 

usually joined together by field welding of steel connectors cast into the 

concrete. Joints should be clearly visible at the mid-span of the beams or 

the mid-height of the columns. See Figure E-44. 

	 Precast arches. Precast arches and pedestals are popular in the 

architecture of these buildings. 

	 Column. When a column displays a precast finish without an indication 

that it has a cover (i.e., no vertical seam can be found), the column is likely 

to be a precast structural column. 

It is possible that a precast concrete frame may not show any of the above 

features. 

E.11.2 Typical Earthquake Damage 

The earthquake performance of this structural type varies widely and is 

sometimes poor. This type of building can perform well if the detailing used 

to connect the structural elements has sufficient strength and ductility 

(toughness). Because structures of this type often employ cast-in-place 

FEMA P-154 E: Characteristics and Earthquake Performance of 

FEMA Building Types Used in RVS 

E-41 
 

 

 

Figure E-44	 Precast structural cross; installation joints are at sections where 

bending is minimum during high seismic demand. 

concrete or reinforced masonry (brick or block) shear walls for lateral-load 

resistance, they experience the same types of damage as other shear wall 

building types. Some of the problem areas specific to precast frames are 

listed below. 

	 Poorly designed connections between prefabricated elements can fail. 

	 Accumulated stresses can result due to shrinkage and creep and due to 

stresses incurred in transportation. 

	 Loss of vertical support can occur due to inadequate bearing area and 

insufficient connection between floor elements and columns. 

	 Corrosion of the metal connectors between prefabricated elements can 

occur. 

E.11.3 Common Retrofit Techniques 

Seismic retrofit techniques for precast concrete frame buildings are varied, 

depending on the elements being strengthened. Inadequate shear capacity of 

floor diaphragms can be addressed by adding reinforced concrete topping to an 

untopped system when possible, or adding new shear walls to reduce the 

seismic shear forces in the diaphragm. Corbels with inadequate vertical shear 

or bending strength can be strengthened by adding epoxied horizontal shear 

dowels through the corbel and into the column. Alternatively, vertical shear 

capacity can be increased by adding a structural steel bolster under the corbel, 

bolted to the column, or a new steel column or reinforced concrete column can 

be added (ATC, 1992). 

E-42 E: Characteristics and Earthquake Performance of FEMA P-154
 

FEMA Building Types Used in RVS 
 

E.12 Reinforced Masonry (RM1 and RM2) 

E.12.1 Characteristics 

Reinforced masonry buildings are mostly low-rise structures with perimeter 

bearing walls, often with wood diaphragms (RM1 buildings) although precast 

concrete is sometimes used (RM2 buildings). Floor and roof assemblies 

usually consist of timber joists and beams, glued laminated beams, or light 

steel joists. The bearing walls consist of grouted and reinforced hollow or 

solid masonry units. Interior supports, if any, are often wood or steel columns, 

wood stud frames, or masonry walls. Occupancy varies from small 

commercial buildings to residential and industrial buildings. Generally, they 

are less than five stories in height although many taller masonry buildings 

exist. Reinforced masonry structures are usually basically rectangular 

structures (See Figure E-45). 

Figure E-45 Modern reinforced brick masonry. 

To identify reinforced masonry, one must determine separately if the building 

is masonry and if it is reinforced. To obtain information on how to recognize 

a masonry structure, see Appendix D, which describes the characteristics of 

construction materials. The best way of assessing the reinforcement 

condition is to compare the date of construction with the date of code 

requirement for the reinforcement of masonry in the local jurisdiction. 

The screener also needs to determine if the building is veneered with masonry 

or is a masonry building. Wood siding is seldom applied over masonry. If the 

front façade appears to be reinforced masonry whereas the side has wood 

siding, it is probably a wood frame that has undergone façade renovation. 

FEMA P-154 E: Characteristics and Earthquake Performance of 

FEMA Building Types Used in RVS 

E-43 
 

The back of the building should be checked for signs of the original 

construction type. 

If it can be determined that the bearing walls are constructed of concrete 

blocks, they may be reinforced. Load-bearing structures using these blocks 

are probably reinforced if the local code required it. Concrete blocks come in 

a variety of sizes and textures. The most common size is 8 inches wide by 16 

inches long by 8 inches high. Their presence is obvious if the concrete blocks 

are left as the finish surface. 

E.12.2 Typical Earthquake Damage 

Reinforced masonry buildings can perform well in moderate earthquakes if 

they are adequately reinforced and grouted, and if sufficient diaphragm 

anchorage exists. A major problem is control of the workmanship during 

construction. Poor construction practice can result in ungrouted and 

unreinforced walls. Even where construction practice is adequate, 

insufficient reinforcement in the design can be responsible for heavy damage 

of the walls. The lack of positive connection of the floor and roof diaphragms 

to the wall is also a problem. Some older reinforced masonry buildings have 

wall-to-diaphragm tension ties that rely on cross-grain bending of the 

perimeter ledger to resist loads, a particularly poor detail for resisting 

earthquake loading. 

E.12.3 Common Retrofit Techniques 

Techniques for seismic retrofit of reinforced masonry bearing wall buildings 

are varied, depending on the element. Techniques for retrofitting masonry 

walls include: (1) applying a layer of concrete or shotcrete to the existing 

walls; (2) adding vertical reinforcing and grouting into ungrouted block walls; 

and (3) filling in large or critical openings with reinforced concrete or masonry 

dowelled to the surrounding wall. Wood or steel deck diaphragms in RM1 

buildings can be rehabilitated by adding an additional layer of plywood to 

strengthen and stiffen an existing wood diaphragm, by shear welding between 

sections of an existing steel deck or adding flat sheet steel reinforcement, or by 

adding additional vertical elements (for example, shear walls or braced 

frames) to decrease diaphragm spans and stresses. Wall-to-diaphragm ties in 

wood frame construction relying on cross-grain bending can be strengthened 

with additional wall anchors and blocking back into the diaphragm to supplant 

the existing weak ties. Precast floor diaphragms in RM2 buildings can be 

strengthened by adding a layer of concrete topping reinforced with mesh (if 

the supporting structure has the capacity to carry the additional vertical dead 

E-44 E: Characteristics and Earthquake Performance of FEMA P-154
 

FEMA Building Types Used in RVS 
 

 

 

 

load), or by adding new shear walls to reduce the diaphragm span (ATC, 

1992). 

E.13 Unreinforced Masonry (URM) 

E.13.1 Characteristics 

Most unreinforced masonry (URM) bearing wall structures in the western 

United States (Figures E-46 through E-50) were built before 1934, although 

this construction type was permitted in some jurisdictions having moderate or 

high seismicity until the late 1940s or early 1950s (in some jurisdictions URM 

may still be a common type of construction, even today). These buildings 

usually range from one to six stories in height and function as commercial, 

residential, or industrial buildings. The construction varies according to the 

type of use, although wood floor and roof diaphragms are common. Smaller 

commercial and residential buildings usually have light wood floor joists and 

roof joists supported on the typical perimeter URM wall and interior, wood, 

load-bearing partitions. Larger buildings, such as industrial warehouses, 

have heavier floors and interior columns, usually of wood. The bearing walls 

of these industrial buildings tend to be thick, often as much as 25 inches or 

more at the base. Wall thicknesses of residential, commercial, and office 

buildings range from 9 inches at upper stories to 17 inches at lower stories. 

The first step in identifying buildings of this type is to determine if the 

structure has bearing walls. Second, the screener should determine the 

approximate age of the building. Some indications of unreinforced masonry 

are listed below. 

	 Weak mortar was used to bond the masonry units together in much of the 

early unreinforced masonry construction in the United States. As the poor 

earthquake performance of this mortar type became known in the 1930s, 

and as cement mortar became available, this weaker mortar was not used 

and thus is not found in more recent masonry buildings. If this soft 

mortar is present, it is probably URM. Soft mortar can be scratched with a 

hard instrument such as a penknife, screwdriver, or a coin. This scratch 

testing, if permitted, should be done in a wall area where the original 

structural material is exposed, such as the sides or back of a building. 

Newer masonry may be used in renovations and it may look very much 

like the old. Older mortar joints can also be repointed (i.e., regular 

maintenance of the masonry mortar), or repaired with newer mortar during 

renovation. The original construction may also have used a high-quality 

mortar. Thus, even if the existence of soft mortar cannot be detected, it 

may still be URM. 

FEMA P-154 E: Characteristics and Earthquake Performance of 

FEMA Building Types Used in RVS 

E-45 
Figure E-46 Drawing of unreinforced masonry bearing wall building, two-story (Lagorio et al., 1986). 

E-46 E: Characteristics and Earthquake Performance of FEMA P-154
 

FEMA Building Types Used in RVS 
Figure E-47 Drawing of unreinforced masonry bearing wall building, four-story (Lagorio et al., 1986). 

FEMA P-154 E: Characteristics and Earthquake Performance of 

FEMA Building Types Used in RVS 

E-47 
Figure E-48 Drawing of unreinforced masonry bearing wall building, six-story (Lagorio et al., 1986). 

E-48 E: Characteristics and Earthquake Performance of FEMA P-154
 

FEMA Building Types Used in RVS 
 

 

Figure E-49 East Coast URM bearing wall building. 

Figure E-50 West Coast URM bearing wall building. 

	 An architectural characteristic of older brick bearing wall structures is the 

arch and flat arch window heads (see Figure E-51). These arrangements 

of masonry units function as a header to carry the load above the opening 

to either side. Although masonry-veneered wood frame structures may 

have these features, they are much more widely used in URM bearing wall 

structures, as they were the most economical method of spanning over a 

window opening at the time of construction. Other methods of spanning 

are also used, including steel and stone lintels, but these methods are 

generally more costly and usually employed in the front façade only. 

FEMA P-154 E: Characteristics and Earthquake Performance of 

FEMA Building Types Used in RVS 

E-49 
 

 

Figure E-51 Drawings of typical window head features in URM bearing wall buildings (Packard, 1981). 

	 Some structures of this type will have anchor plates visible at the floor and 

roof lines, approximately 6-10 feet on center around the perimeter of the 

building. Anchor plates are usually square or diamond-shaped steel 

plates approximately 6 inches by 6 inches, with a bolt and nut at the center. 

Their presence indicates anchor ties have been placed to tie the walls to the 

floors and roof. These are either from the original construction or from 

retrofit under local ordinances. Unless the anchors are 6 feet on center or 

less, they are not considered effective in earthquakes. If they are closely 

spaced, and appear to be recently installed, it indicates that the building 

has been rehabilitated. In either case, when these anchors are present all 

around the building, the original construction is URM bearing wall. 

E-50 E: Characteristics and Earthquake Performance of FEMA P-154
 

FEMA Building Types Used in RVS 
 

 

 

	 When a building has many exterior solid walls constructed from hollow 

clay tile, and no columns of another material can be detected, it is probably 

not a URM bearing wall but probably a wood or metal frame structure 

with URM infill. 

	 One way to distinguish a reinforced masonry building from an 

unreinforced masonry building is to examine the brick pattern closely. 

Reinforced masonry usually does not show header bricks in the wall 

surface. 

If a building does not display the above features, or if the exterior is covered by 

other finish material, the building may still be URM. 

E.13.2 Typical Earthquake Damage 

Unreinforced masonry structures are recognized as the most hazardous 

structural type. They have been observed to fail in many modes during past 

earthquakes. Typical problems include the following. 

	 Unbraced parapets. Parapets cantilevering up from the roof line are 

typically not braced and are usually the first element to fail in an 

earthquake. See Figure E-52 for parapet damage. 

Figure E-52 Parapet failure leaving an uneven roof line, due to inadequate 

anchorage, 1989 Loma Prieta earthquake. 

	 Insufficient wall-to-diaphragm ties. Because the perimeter walls are not 

positively anchored to the floors and roof, they tend to fall out under 

FEMA P-154 E: Characteristics and Earthquake Performance of 

FEMA Building Types Used in RVS 

E-51 
 

 

 

 

out-of-plane loading. The collapse of bearing walls can lead to major 

building collapses. Some of these buildings have anchors as a part of the 

original construction or as a retrofit. These older anchors exhibit 

questionable performance. 

	 Inadequate URM wall out-of-plane capacity. URM walls that are 

adequately tied to the floor and roof diaphragms span between the 

diaphragms under out-of-plane loads perpendicular to the face of the wall. 

Walls with high height-to-thickness ratios are more susceptible to 

out-of-plane failures. 

	 Inadequate URM wall in-plane capacity. The mortar used in older URM 

buildings was often made of lime and sand, with little or no cement, and 

had limited shear strength. Wall lines with large openings further reduce 

capacity. URM bearing walls can be heavily damaged and collapse 

under large loads. See Figure E-53. 

Figure E-53 Damaged URM building, 1992 Big Bear earthquake. 

	 Inadequate diaphragm strength and stiffness. The strength and stiffness 

of wood diaphragms in wood buildings can be inadequate to take the large 

loads generated by the heavy masonry walls. They may lack the strength 

to transfer out-of-plane wall loads back through the diaphragm to the 

in-plane walls. And the displacements at mid-span of the diaphragm may 

amplifying the out-of-plane loads on the walls and exceed the in-plane 

capacity of interior partitions. At open front situations, the diaphragm 

may be inadequate to transfer the load from URM perimeter walls above 

the open front back to other walls that can deliver the loads to the 

foundations. 

E-52 E: Characteristics and Earthquake Performance of FEMA P-154
 

FEMA Building Types Used in RVS 
FEMA P-154 E: Characteristics and Earthquake Performance of 

FEMA Building Types Used in RVS 

E-53 

 

 

	 Slender Walls. Some of these buildings have tall story heights and thin 

walls. This condition, especially in non-load-bearing walls, will result in 

buckling out-of-plane under severe lateral load. Failure of a 

non-load-bearing wall represents a falling hazard, whereas the collapse of 

a load-bearing wall will lead to partial or total collapse of the structure. 

E.13.3 Common Retrofit Techniques 

Over the last 20 years or more, jurisdictions in California have required that 

unreinforced masonry bearing wall buildings be rehabilitated or demolished. 

To minimize the economical impact on owners of having to rehabilitate their 

buildings, many jurisdictions implemented phased programs such that the 

critical items were dealt with first. The following are the key elements 

included in a typical retrofit program. 

	 Parapet and chimneys are braced back to the roof. 

	 Roof and floor diaphragms are connected to the walls for both anchorage 

forces (out of the plane of the wall) and shear forces (in the plane of the 

wall). Anchorage connections are placed at 6 feet spacing or less, 

depending on the force requirements. Shear connections are usually 

placed at around 2 feet center to center. Anchors consist of bolts installed 

through the wall, with 6-inch-square washer plates, and connected to 

hardware attached to the wood framing. Shear connections usually are 

bolts embedded in the masonry walls in oversized holes filled with either a 

non-shrink grout or an epoxy adhesive. See Figure E-54. 

Figure E-54 Two existing anchors above three new wall anchors at floor line 

using decorative washer plates. 
 

 

 

 

	 In cases when the height-to-thickness ratio of the walls exceeds the limits 

of stability, retrofit consists of reducing the spans of the wall to a level that 

their thickness can support or adding vertical wood or steel posts 

(“strongbacks”) that are anchored to the wall and span between 

diaphragms. 

	 If the building has an open storefront in the first story, resulting in a soft 

story, part of the storefront is enclosed with new masonry or a steel frame 

is provided there, with new foundations. 

	 Walls are retrofitted by either closing openings with reinforced masonry 

or with reinforced shotcrete. Loads to the perimeter walls can be reduced 

by adding interior steel braces. 

	 Inadequate diaphragms can be strengthened with plywood overlays and 

blocking. 

E.14 Manufactured Housing (MH) 

E.14.1 Characteristics 

The Manufactured Housing building type has been added to the third edition 

of FEMA P-154. Manufactured Housing is part of a larger class of 

prefabricated structures that includes modular buildings. 

Manufactured homes are built in a factory and transported to the site. Mobile 

home is an older term for a manufactured home, though mobile home remains 

in widespread use. Construction requirements for manufactured homes are 

administered by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development 

(HUD), per HUD’s Manufactured Home Construction and Safety Standards. 

HUD regulation of manufactured housing began in 1976. HUD standards are 

published in the Code of Federal Regulations under 24 CFR Part 3280, and 

they define a manufactured home as: 

“a structure, transportable in one or more sections, which in the 

traveling mode is 8 body feet or more in width or 40 body feet or more 

in length or which when erected on-site is 320 or more square feet, 

and which is built on a permanent chassis and designed to be used as 

a dwelling with or without a permanent foundation when connected to 

the required utilities.” 

Manufactured homes come in different sizes. A single-wide can be up to 18 

feet in width. A double-wide is 20 feet or more in width; it is towed to the site 

in two separate units, which are then joined together. Some homes are built 

with additional units to create an even larger structure. Manufactured homes 

are typically one story. Floors and roofs are usually constructed with 

E-54 E: Characteristics and Earthquake Performance of FEMA P-154
 

FEMA Building Types Used in RVS 
 

 

plywood or oriented strand board, and the outside surfaces are covered with 

sheet metal. 

At the site, the HAZUS-MH MR4 Technical Manual (FEMA, 2009a) notes that 

“manufactured homes are typically placed on isolated piers, jack stands, or 

masonry block foundations (usually without any positive anchorage).” 

Earthquake resistant bracing systems (ERBS) are available. A 1995 HUD 

brochure (National Conference, 1996) notes that “Some bracing systems 

simply provide a frame that catches the home if, during an earthquake, the 

home falls off its pier. Other more elaborate bracing systems actually 

minimize both horizontal and vertical movement of the home through 

connections between the bracing system, the home, and the footings.” 

Modular buildings are also factory built in units or modules, but they do not 

have a permanent chassis or axles and must be transported to the site on flatbed 

trucks. Using a crane, the modules are set on a foundation and joined together 

to make a final structure. They may be multistory. Modular buildings are 

governed by local building codes. 

Prefabricated structures are used not just as residences, but also for schools 

and other occupancies, as well as temporary buildings with many uses. 

Portable classrooms are often used on school properties to provide additional 

temporary space. In California, permanent foundations are required when the 

classroom exceeds 2,160 square feet or has more than one story, per the 

Division of State Architect’s IR 16-1 “Design and Construction Requirements 

for Relocatable Buildings” (DSA, 2011). 

The focus for the Manufactured Housing screening category is on buildings 

that are mobile, raised up off the ground, not anchored to the ground, and may 

or may not have an ERBS. This includes mobile homes and modular 

buildings, such as those used for portable classrooms, when they are not 

permanently anchored. 

Prefabricated structures that are anchored to a foundation and are wood framed 

are screened using the RVS procedure for W1 buildings; similarly, 

prefabricated structures built with a steel superstructure and anchored to a 

foundation are screened with the RVS procedure for S1 buildings. 

In a rapid visual screening, it may not always be possible to determine whether 

a permanent foundation or an ERBS exists, as there is often a cripple wall or 

skirt wall covering the underlying conditions. Unanchored Manufactured 

Housing should be assumed unless a permanent foundation or ERBS can be 

seen. 

FEMA P-154 E: Characteristics and Earthquake Performance of 

FEMA Building Types Used in RVS 

E-55 
 

 

E.14.2 Typical Earthquake Damage 

The lightweight superstructure of Manufactured Housing as defined above is 

somewhat seismically resilient as it must be designed to be transported and to 

resist wind loads. Typical superstructure earthquake damage can include 

cracking of partitions and ceilings and racking of walls. Complete failure of 

the superstructure due to racking is relatively unlikely. The primary issue of 

concern and source of significant damage is due to the lack of a permanent 

foundation connection or an ERBS. In moderate shaking, the building can 

fall off its supports, and jack stands can penetrate the floor. Connecting utility 

lines can be severed, and escaping gas can cause fires. Falling objects, 

structural damage, and fire can lead to injuries and fatalities. The cost and 

disruption from damage can be significant. 

E.14.3 Common Retrofit Techniques 

Because the superstructure of Manufactured Housing is relatively seismically 

resilient, it is rare for it to undergo seismic retrofitting. However, the addition 

of an ERBS is a common retrofit technique if it was not done at the time of 

original installation on the site. 

E-56 E: Characteristics and Earthquake Performance of FEMA P-154
 

FEMA Building Types Used in RVS 
Appendix F 

Guidance on Assessing Damage 

and Deterioration 

F.1 Introduction 

The scoring system in FEMA P-154 RVS is established assuming that the 

building is constructed of sound materials. Deterioration of structural 

elements can have a significant impact on the expected performance of a 

building and therefore needs to be captured when performing a survey when 

possible. Determination of the potential impact on performance is difficult at 

best since not all damage and deterioration is visible, nor is it easy to assess. 

Chapter 3 provides guidelines for assessing damage and deterioration during 

a Level 1 screening. 

The following sections describe some of the important conditions to consider 

when evaluating this hazard. The key question is whether the level of 

deterioration and damage rises to the level of “significant” and thus triggers a 

Detailed Structural Evaluation. This is best determined by an experienced 

engineer, but the guidance below is provided to assist the screener in 

conducting RVS. 

F.2 Guidance on Assessing Damage and Deterioration of 

Wood 

Conditions, such as decay, shrinkage, splitting, fire damage, or sagging, may 

affect the overall capacity of the seismic force-resisting system. Metal 

accessory deterioration, or broken or loose connections, can also contribute 

to lateral weaknesses. 

Evidence of moisture damage on the building surfaces is a good clue that 

hidden damage may exist. Rusted nails, bolts, and fasteners can have a 

major impact on the capacity to transfer the loads as intended. 

Wood structural panels or shear walls should be checked for evidence of sill 

plate damage when the sill is accessible (Figure F-1). Rusted nails or 

evidence of decay on the wood framing will suggest that its strength has been 

compromised. 

FEMA P-154 F: Guidance on Assessing Damage and Deterioration F-1 
Figure F-1 Wood decay in cripple wall. 

Wood post and bracing systems should be checked for rot, splitting and steel 

corrosion (Figures F-2 and F-3). Since these can generally be considered to 

provide primary lateral resistance, their integrity is essential to the seismic 

resistance of the structure and can warrant a more detailed evaluation to 

assure safety. 

Figure F-2 Damaged wood post. 

F-2 F: Guidance on Assessing Damage and Deterioration FEMA P-154 
Figure F-3 Rotted timber column. 

Fire-damaged members are often not directly observed; however, when 

discovered, their effect should be considered. Reduction of member sizes 

and significant charring should be noted and flagged for additional 

investigation. 

Steel bolts and other metal fasteners that show evidence of deterioration 

should be evaluated when they are part of the primary seismic force-resisting 

system. 

Checking and splitting of wood, water stains on wood elements, and light 

rust on metal connection hardware, are common and do not warrant checking 

a detailed evaluation. However, if there is noticeable loss of cross section in 

wood members or large areas of softness from dryrot or insect damage, and if 

there are a substantial number of broken connections or connections with 

substantial loss of cross section from rust, then this is considered significant, 

and a Detailed Structural Evaluation is recommended. 

F.3 Guidance on Assessing Damage and Deterioration of 

Steel 

Rusting and corrosion of steel members and connections can be an important 

indicator of the potential for poor performance in a building’s lateral forceresisting system (Figure F-4). Reduced member size, pitting, scaling, and 

other detrimental effects of water intrusion should be evaluated. 

Steel members exhibiting notable size reductions or pitting should be 

captured in the survey. While the primary concern is for elements 

FEMA P-154 F: Guidance on Assessing Damage and Deterioration F-3 
comprising the seismic force-resisting system, it is helpful to comment on 

any member that has this defect. 

Figure F-4 Corroded steel fasteners. 

Some other considerations include cracking or missing bolts. For the 

purposes of RVS, this is most important when it occurs in the seismic forceresisting system. 

Steel surface rusting or corrosion may appear severe, but if it does not 

significantly reduce the member section then it should not be considered 

sufficient to trigger a detailed evaluation. On the other hand, significant loss 

of section in important members of the lateral system or significant loss of 

section at connections or substantial missing bolts or other connectors is 

sufficient to trigger a Detailed Structural Evaluation. 

F.4 Guidance on Assessing Damage and Deterioration of 

Concrete 

Deterioration of concrete materials either as cover for reinforcing steel or due 

to cracking should be considered detrimental to the capacity of the individual 

members. 

Spalling of concrete cover over reinforcing steel can be evidence of moisture 

and corrosion issues (Figure F-5). While not always a problem for a 

member’s reduction in capacity, it can be an indicator of hidden reinforcing 

steel corrosion that would reduce member strength. 

F-4 F: Guidance on Assessing Damage and Deterioration FEMA P-154 
Figure F-5 Spalled concrete cover. 

The benefits of reinforcing steel in concrete members can be significantly 

reduced when the steel is compromised through corrosion and deterioration. 

Exposed reinforcing steel does not bond to concrete and therefore is 

ineffective in transferring forces and consequently should be further 

evaluated (Figure F-6). 

Figure F-6 Exposed reinforcing steel. 

Post-tensioning anchor corrosion can also lead to failure of concrete sections. 

If these connections can be examined and they show evidence of significant 

loss of section, then this should be reason for further examination of the 

structure. 

FEMA P-154 F: Guidance on Assessing Damage and Deterioration F-5 
 

Precast concrete walls and precast members generally rely upon mechanical 

anchorages to fasten them into a system. Examination of these steel elements 

for corrosion and loss of section can also lead to concerns about their 

capacity to perform adequately during an earthquake. If excessive rust is 

observed, then this should be flagged and commented upon on the screening 

forms. 

Long-term creep, shrinkage or temperature extremes can produce cracking 

near connections. For simplicity in rapid visual screening, concrete crack 

widths of 1/8” or greater should be considered significant and reported on the 

forms. 

Concrete walls and columns can also have cracking which may affect the 

overall strength of a building (Figure F-7). Crack width and crack type are 

both important considerations. For example, flexural cracks or temperature 

and shrinkage cracking are typically not considered to be of serious concern. 

Cracks representative of shear demands, on the other hand, can be of more 

substantial concern. FEMA 306 report, Evaluation and Repair of 

Earthquake Damaged Concrete and Masonry Wall Buildings (FEMA, 

1999a), provides excellent additional guidance, but is beyond the level of 

effort intended for RVS. For the purposes of the rapid visual screening, 

crack widths of 1/8” or greater that appear to go fully through the structural 

elements and are at least 25% of the length or width of a member are 

sufficient to warrant a Detailed Structural Evaluation. 

Figure F-7 Concrete cracks. 

F-6 F: Guidance on Assessing Damage and Deterioration FEMA P-154 
F.5 Guidance on Assessing Damage and Deterioration of 

Reinforced Masonry 

Reinforced masonry can exhibit cracking from a variety of sources (Figure 

F-8). Temperature extremes, inadequate control joints, foundation settlement 

and other causes can produce diagonal or joint line cracking that should be 

examined and evaluated. Crack widths greater than 1/8” or greater over at 

least 25% of the length of a member are sufficient to warrant a Detailed 

Structural Evaluation. 

Figure F-8 “Stair-step” cracking. 

F.6 Guidance on Assessing Damage and Deterioration of 

Unreinforced Masonry 

Cracking in unreinforced masonry walls can be detrimental to the overall 

expected performance of these types of buildings. Diagonal “stair-step” or 

through-brick cracking with widths greater than 1/8” should be captured for 

additional investigation by checking the “Significant Damage/Deterioration 

to the Structural System” box (Figure F-9). Cracks over at least 25% of the 

length of a member are sufficient to warrant a Detailed Structural Evaluation. 

FEMA P-154 F: Guidance on Assessing Damage and Deterioration F-7 
Figure F-9 Masonry joint separations. 

F-8 F: Guidance on Assessing Damage and Deterioration FEMA P-154 
Appendix G 

Earthquakes and How Buildings 

Resist Them 

G.1 The Nature of Earthquakes 

In a global sense, earthquakes result from motion between plates comprising 

the earth’s crust (see Figure G-1). These plates are driven by the convective 

motion of the material in the earth’s mantle between the core and the crust, 

which in turn is driven by heat generated at the earth’s core. Just as in a 

heated pot of water, heat from the earth’s core causes material to rise to the 

earth’s surface. Forces between the rising material and the earth’s crustal 

plates cause the plates to move. The resulting relative motions of the plates 

are associated with the generation of earthquakes. Where the plates spread 

apart, molten material fills the void. An example is the ridge on the ocean 

floor, at the middle of the Atlantic Ocean. This material quickly cools and, 

over millions of years, is driven by newer, viscous, fluid material across the 

ocean floor. 

Figure G-1	 The separate tectonic plates comprising the earth’s crust 

superimposed on a map of the world. 

These large pieces of the earth’s surface, termed tectonic plates, move very 

slowly and irregularly. Forces build up for decades, centuries, or millennia at 

the interfaces (or faults) between plates, until a large releasing movement 

FEMA P-154 G: Earthquakes and How Buildings Resist Them G-1 
suddenly occurs. This sudden, violent motion produces the nearby shaking 

that is felt as an earthquake. Strong shaking produces strong horizontal 

forces on structures, which can cause direct damage to buildings, bridges, 

and other man-made structures as well as triggering fires, landslides, road 

damage, tidal waves (tsunamis), and other damaging phenomena. 

A fault is like a “tear” in the earth’s crust and its fault surface may be from 

one to over one hundred miles deep. In some cases, faults are the physical 

expression of the boundary between adjacent tectonic plates and thus are 

hundreds of miles long. In addition, there are shorter faults, parallel to, or 

branching out from, a main fault zone. Generally, the longer a fault, the 

larger magnitude earthquake it can generate. Beyond the main tectonic 

plates, there are many smaller sub-plates, platelets and simple blocks of crust 

which can move or shift due to the jostling of their neighbors and the major 

plates. The known existence of these many sub-plates implies that smaller 

but still damaging earthquakes are possible almost anywhere. 

With the present understanding of the earthquake generating mechanism, the 

times, sizes, and locations of earthquakes cannot be reliably predicted. 

Generally, earthquakes will be concentrated in the vicinity of faults, and 

certain faults are more likely than others to produce a large event, but the 

earthquake generating process is not understood well enough to predict the 

exact time of earthquake occurrence. Therefore, communities must be 

prepared for an earthquake to occur at any time. 

Four major factors can affect the severity of ground shaking and thus 

potential damage at a site. These are the magnitude of the earthquake, the 

type of earthquake, the distance from the source of the earthquake to the site, 

and the hardness or softness of the rock or soil at the site. Larger 

earthquakes will shake longer and harder, and thus cause more damage. 

Experience has shown that the ground motion can be felt for several seconds 

to a minute or longer. In preparing for earthquakes, both horizontal (side to 

side) and vertical shaking must be considered. 

There are many ways to describe the size and severity of an earthquake and 

associated ground shaking. Perhaps the most familiar are earthquake 

magnitude and Modified Mercalli Intensity (MMI, often simply termed 

“intensity”). Earthquake magnitude is technically known as the Richter 

magnitude, a numerical description of the maximum amplitude of ground 

movement measured by a seismograph (adjusted to a standard setting). On 

the Richter scale, the largest recorded earthquakes have had magnitudes of 

about 9.5. It is a logarithmic scale, and a unit increase in magnitude 

corresponds to a ten-fold increase in the adjusted ground displacement 

G-2 G: Earthquakes and How Buildings Resist Them FEMA P-154 
 

amplitude, and to approximately a thirty-fold increase in total potential strain 

energy released by the earthquake. 

Modified Mercalli Intensity (MMI) is a subjective scale defining the level of 

shaking at specific sites on a scale of I to XII. (MMI is expressed in Roman 

numerals, to connote its approximate nature.) For example, slight shaking 

that causes few instances of fallen plaster or cracks in chimneys constitutes 

MMI VI. It is difficult to find a reliable precise relationship between 

magnitude, which is a description of the earthquake’s total energy level, and 

intensity, which is a subjective description of the level of shaking of the 

earthquake at specific sites, because shaking intensity can vary with building 

type, design and construction practice, soil type and distance from the event. 

The following analogy may be worth remembering: earthquake magnitude 

and intensity are similar to a light bulb and the light it emits. A particular 

light bulb has only one energy level, or wattage (e.g., 100 watts, analogous to 

an earthquake’s magnitude). Near the light bulb, the light intensity is very 

bright (perhaps 100 foot-candles, analogous to MMI IX), while farther away 

the intensity decreases (e.g., 10 foot-candles, MMI V). 

A particular earthquake has only one magnitude value, whereas it has 

intensity values that differ throughout the surrounding land. MMI is a 

subjective measure of seismic intensity at a site, and cannot be measured 

using a scientific instrument. Rather, MMI is estimated by scientists based 

on observations, such as the degree of disturbance to the ground, the degree 

of damage to typical buildings and the behavior of people. A more objective 

measure of seismic shaking at a site, which can be measured by instruments, 

is a simple structure’s acceleration in response to the ground motion. In this 

Handbook, the level of ground shaking is described by the spectral response 

acceleration. 

G.2 Seismicity of the United States 

Figure G-2 shows the seismicity of the United States based on the 2014 

seismicity catalog of the USGS National Seismic Hazard Mapping Project. 

The data are based on Petersen et al. (2014), Wesson et al. (2007), and Klein 

et al. (2001). 

It is evident that some parts of the country have experienced more 

earthquakes than others. The boundary between the North American and 

Pacific tectonic plates lies along the west coast of the United States and south 

of Alaska. The San Andreas fault in California and the Aleutian Trench off 

the coast of Alaska are part of this boundary. These active seismic zones 

have generated earthquakes with Richter magnitudes greater than 8. Many 

FEMA P-154 G: Earthquakes and How Buildings Resist Them G-3 
Figure G-2 Seismicity data for the United States showing earthquake locations with varying size of circles 

depending on the magnitude. 

G-4 G: Earthquakes and How Buildings Resist Them FEMA P-154 
 

other smaller fault zones exist throughout the western United States that are 

also participating intermittently in releasing the stresses and strains that are 

built up as the tectonic plates try to move past one another. Because 

earthquakes always occur along faults, the seismic hazard will be greater for 

those population centers close to active fault zones. 

In California, the earthquake hazard is so significant that special study zones 

have been created by the legislature, and named Alquist-Priola Special Study 

Zones. These zones cover the larger known faults and require special 

geotechnical studies to be performed in order to establish design parameters. 

On the east coast of the United States, the sources of earthquakes are less 

understood. There is no plate boundary and few locations of faults are 

known. Therefore, it is difficult to make statements about where earthquakes 

are most likely to occur. Several significant historical earthquakes have 

occurred, such as in Charleston, South Carolina, in 1886, New Madrid, 

Missouri, in 1811 and 1812, and Mineral, Virginia in 2011, indicating that 

there is potential for large earthquakes. However, most earthquakes in the 

Eastern United States are smaller magnitude events. Because of regional 

geologic differences, specifically, the hardness of the crustal rock, Eastern 

and Central United States earthquakes are felt at much greater distances from 

their sources than those in the western United States, sometimes at distances 

up to a thousand miles. 

G.3 Earthquake Effects 

Many different types of damage can occur in buildings. Damage can be 

divided into two categories: structural and nonstructural, both of which can 

be hazardous to building occupants. Structural damage means degradation of 

the building’s structural support systems (i.e., vertical- and lateral-forceresisting systems), such as the building frames and walls. Nonstructural 

damage refers to any damage that does not affect the integrity of the 

structural support systems. Examples of nonstructural damage are collapsed 

chimneys, broken windows, or fallen ceilings. The type of damage to be 

expected is a complex issue that depends on the structural type and age of the 

building, its configuration, construction materials, the site conditions, the 

proximity of the building to neighboring buildings, and the type of nonstructural elements. 

When strong earthquake shaking occurs, a building is shaken mostly from 

side to side, and also up and down. That is, while the ground is violently 

moving from side to side, taking the building foundation with it, the building 

structure tends to stay at rest, similar to a passenger standing on a bus that 

FEMA P-154 G: Earthquakes and How Buildings Resist Them G-5 
accelerates quickly. Once the building starts moving, it tends to continue in 

the same direction, but the ground moves back in the opposite direction (as if 

the bus driver first accelerated quickly, then suddenly braked). Thus, the 

building gets thrown back and forth by the motion of the ground, with some 

parts of the building lagging behind the foundation movement, and then 

moving in the opposite direction. The force F that an upper floor level or 

roof level of the building should successfully resist is related to its mass m

and its acceleration a, according to Newton’s law, F = ma. The heavier the 

building, the more the force is exerted. Therefore, a tall, heavy, reinforcedconcrete building will be subject to more force than a lightweight, one-story, 

wood frame house, given the same acceleration. 

Damage can be due either to structural members (beams, columns, and walls) 

being overloaded or differential movements between different parts of the 

structure. If the structure is sufficiently strong to resist these forces or 

differential movements, little damage will result. If the structure cannot 

resist these forces or differential movements, structural members will be 

damaged, and collapse may occur. 

Building damage is related to the duration and the severity of the ground 

shaking. Larger earthquakes tend to shake longer and harder and therefore 

cause more damage to structures. Earthquakes with Richter magnitudes less 

than 5 rarely cause significant damage to buildings, since acceleration levels 

(except when the site is on the fault) and duration of shaking for these 

earthquakes are relatively small. 

In addition to damage caused by ground shaking, damage can be caused by 

buildings pounding against one another, ground failure that causes the 

degradation of the building foundation, landslides, fires and tidal waves 

(tsunamis). Most of these indirect forms of damage are not addressed in this 

Handbook. 

Generally, the farther from the source of an earthquake, the less severe is the 

motion. The rate at which motion decreases with distance is a function of the 

regional geology, inherent characteristics and details of the earthquake, and 

its source location. The underlying geology of the site can also have a 

significant effect on the amplitude of the ground motion there. Soft, loose 

soils tend to amplify the ground motion and in many cases a resonance effect 

can make it last longer. In such circumstances, building damage can be 

accentuated. In the San Francisco earthquake of 1906, damage was greater 

in the areas where buildings were constructed on loose, man-made fill and 

less at the tops of the rocky hills. Even more dramatic was the 1985 Mexico 

City earthquake. This earthquake occurred 250 miles from the city, but very 

G-6 G: Earthquakes and How Buildings Resist Them FEMA P-154 
soft soils beneath the city amplified the ground shaking enough to cause 

weak mid-rise buildings to collapse (see Figure G-3). Resonance of the 

building frequency with the amplified ground shaking frequency played a 

significant role. Sites with rock close to or at the surface will be less likely to 

amplify motion. The type of motion felt also changes with distance from the 

earthquake. Close to the source the motion tends to be violent rapid shaking, 

whereas farther away the motion is normally more of a swaying nature. 

Buildings will respond differently to the rapid shaking than to the swaying 

motion. 

Figure G-3 Mid-rise building collapse, 1985 Mexico City earthquake. 

Each building has its own vibrational characteristics that depend on building 

height and structural type. Similarly, each earthquake has its own vibrational 

characteristics that depend on the geology of the site, distance from the 

source, and the type and site of the earthquake source mechanism. 

Sometimes a natural resonant frequency of the building and a prominent 

frequency of the earthquake motion are similar and cause a sympathetic 

response, termed resonance. This causes an increase in the amplitude of the 

building’s vibration and consequently increases the potential for damage. 

Resonance was a major problem in the 1985 Mexico City earthquake, in 

which the total collapse of many mid-rise buildings (Figure G-7) caused 

many fatalities. Tall buildings at large distances from the earthquake source 

have a small, but finite, probability of being subjected to ground motions 

containing frequencies that can cause resonance. Similar effects were seen in 

the 2010 Chile earthquake where a number of tall concrete buildings in 

Santiago were damaged, even though the epicenter was hundreds of miles 

away. 

Where taller, more flexible, buildings are susceptible to distant earthquakes 

(swaying motion) shorter and stiffer buildings are more susceptible to nearby 

FEMA P-154 G: Earthquakes and How Buildings Resist Them G-7 
earthquakes (rapid shaking). 

The level of damage that results from a major earthquake depends on how 

well a building has been designed and constructed (see Section G.4). The 

exact type of damage cannot be predicted because no two buildings undergo 

identical motion. However, there are some general trends that have been 

observed in many earthquakes. 

	 Newer buildings generally sustain less damage than older buildings 

designed to earlier codes. 

	 Common problems in wood frame construction are the collapse of 

unreinforced chimneys (Figure G-4), houses sliding off their foundations 

(Figure G-5), collapse of wood frame cripple walls (Figure G-6), and 

collapse of post and pier foundations (Figure G-7). Although such 

damage may be costly to repair, it is not usually life threatening. 

Figure G-4 Collapsed chimney with damaged roof, 1987 Whittier Narrows 

earthquake. 

Figure G-5 House that slid off foundation, 1994 Northridge earthquake. 

G-8 G: Earthquakes and How Buildings Resist Them FEMA P-154 
Figure G-6 Collapsed cripple stud walls dropped this house to the ground, 

1992 Landers and Big Bear earthquakes. 

Figure G-7 Photo of house settled to the ground due to collapse of its post 

and pier foundation. 

The collapse of load bearing walls that support the floor and roof framing for 

the structure is a common form of damage in unreinforced masonry 

structures (Figure G-8). This damage commonly occurs due to lack of an 

adequate structural connection between the floor and roof framing and the 

heavy masonry walls. 

Similar types of damage have occurred in many older tilt-up buildings 

(Figure G-9). 

From a life-safety perspective, vulnerable buildings need to be clearly 

identified, and then strengthened or demolished. 

FEMA P-154 G: Earthquakes and How Buildings Resist Them G-9 
Figure G-8 Collapse of unreinforced masonry bearing wall, 1933 Long 

Beach earthquake. 

Figure G-9 Collapse of a tilt-up bearing wall, 1994 Northridge earthquake. 

G.4 How Buildings Resist Earthquakes 

As described above, buildings experience horizontal distortion when 

subjected to earthquake motion. When these distortions get large, the 

damage can be catastrophic. Therefore, most buildings are designed with 

lateral force-resisting systems (or seismic force-resisting systems), to resist 

the effects of earthquake forces. In many cases, seismic systems make a 

building stiffer against horizontal forces, and thus minimize the amount of 

relative lateral movement and consequently the damage. 

The combined action of seismic systems along the width and length of a 

building can typically resist earthquake motion from any direction. Seismic 

systems differ from building to building because the type of system is 

controlled to some extent by the basic layout and structural elements of the 

G-10 G: Earthquakes and How Buildings Resist Them FEMA P-154 
building. Basically, seismic systems consist of axial-, shear- and bendingresistant elements. 

In wood frame, stud-wall buildings, plywood siding is typically used to 

prevent excessive lateral deflection in the plane of the wall. Without the 

extra strength provided by the plywood or other structural sheathing, walls 

would distort excessively or “rack,” resulting in broken windows and stuck 

doors. In older wood frame houses, this resistance to lateral loads may be 

provided by either wood or steel diagonal bracing. 

The earthquake-resisting systems in modern steel buildings take many forms. 

Many types of diagonal bracing configurations have been used, such as 

single diagonal braces, X-bracing, V-bracing, or inverted V-bracing. In 

braced frames, horizontal loads are resisted through tension and compression 

forces in the braces with resulting changed forces in the beams and columns. 

Steel buildings are sometimes constructed with moment-resistant frames in 

one direction and braced frames in the other. 

Moment-resisting steel frames are capable of resisting lateral loads. In this 

type of construction the connections between the beams and the columns are 

designed to resist the rotation of the column relative to the beam. Thus, the 

beam and the column work together and resist lateral movement and lateral 

displacement by bending. 

In concrete structures, shear walls are sometimes used to provide lateral 

resistance in the plane of the wall, in addition to moment-resisting frames. 

Ideally, these shear walls are continuous reinforced-concrete walls extending 

from the foundation to the roof of the building. They can be exterior walls or 

interior walls. They are interconnected with the rest of the concrete frame, 

and thus resist the horizontal motion of one floor relative to another. Shear 

walls can also be constructed of reinforced masonry, using bricks or concrete 

blocks. 

FEMA P-154 G: Earthquakes and How Buildings Resist Them G-11 

 

Glossary, Abbreviations, 

and Symbols 

Glossary 

Adjusted Baseline Score: The score used at the beginning of the Level 2 

page of the Data Collection Form that takes the Final Score on the Level 1 

page and subtracts the plan and vertical irregularity Score Modifiers. 

Basic Score: Each FEMA Building Type has a Basic Score for each 

seismicity region that provides a relative comparison of expected seismic 

performance. 

Benchmark Year: The year that substantially improved seismic codes were 

adopted and enforced. See Chapter 2. 

Collapse: Collapse is defined in FEMA P-154 as when the gravity loadcarrying system (such as beams, columns, floors, shear walls) loses the 

ability to carry its own weight and the weight of whatever else it supports. 

That failure leads to severe structural deformation of a potentially lifethreatening nature, especially falling of all or portions of the structure. 

Construction Documents: Drawings and specifications prepared by the 

design team that are used by the contractor to build the building. This 

includes architectural and structural drawings. These are sometimes referred 

to as working drawings. 

Cut-off Score: A Final Score established by the RVS Authority to divide 

screened buildings into two categories: those that are expected to have 

acceptable seismic performance, and those that may be seismically hazardous 

and should be studied further. See Chapter 2 and Chapter 5. 

Data Collection Form: The form used to document the rapid visual 

screening. The first page provides the Level 1 screening. The second page 

covers the optional Level 2 screening. Data Collection Forms are available 

for the Low, Moderate, Moderately High, High, and Very High seismicity 

regions. 

Detailed Nonstructural Evaluation: Following a rapid visual screening in 

FEMA P-154, if potential nonstructural seismic deficiencies are identified, a 

Detailed Nonstructural Evaluation is recommended. FEMA E-74 (FEMA, 

2012) can be used to conduct the evaluation. 

FEMA P-154 H: Glossary, Abbreviations, and Symbols H-1 
Detailed Structural Evaluation: Following a rapid visual screening in 

FEMA P-154, if the Final Score is below the cut-off score; the FEMA 

Building Type is unknown; or there or other hazards such as pounding 

potential with adjacent buildings, falling hazards from adjacent buildings, 

geologic hazards, Soil Type F soil, or significant damage/deterioration, then 

a Detailed Structural Evaluation is recommended. ASCE/SEI 41-13 (ASCE, 

2014) can be used to conduct the evaluation. 

FEMA Building Type: A set of standardized building types developed in 

FEMA publications to cover the common building types found in the United 

States. This is also known in some publications as FEMA Model Building 

Type and Model Building Type. See Chapter 3 and Appendix E for more 

detail. 

Final Score: The Final Score is derived by adding to or subtracting Score 

Modifiers from the Basic Score for the FEMA Building Type. Final Scores 

typically range from 0 to 7, with higher scores corresponding to better 

expected seismic performance and a lower potential for collapse. The Final 

Score can also be used to estimate of the probability of building collapse. 

The score is an estimate of the negative of the logarithm (base 10) of the 

probability of collapse should severe ground shaking occur with at the MCER 

level. See FEMA P-155. 

Gable Wall: A generally triangularly-shaped wall at the exterior of a 

building under a roof. 

Geographic Information System (GIS): A system designed to capture, 

store, manipulate, analyze, manage, and present all types of geographical 

data. GIS can provide valuable information about the buildings to be 

screened. 

High Seismicity Region: A region of high seismicity as defined by Table 

2-2. 

Level 1 Form: The first page of the Data Collection Form. It must be 

completed during the rapid visual screening. 

Level 1 Screener: Individual that conducts Level 1 screenings of buildings 

who can be an appropriately trained civil or structural engineer, architect, 

design professional, building official, construction contractor, facility 

manager, firefighter, architectural or engineering student, or another 

individual with a general familiarity or background in building design or 

construction. See Chapter 2. 

Level 2 Form: The second page of the Data Collection Form. Completion is 

optional. 

H-2 H: Glossary, Abbreviations, and Symbols FEMA P-154 
 

 

Level 2 Screener: Individual that conducts both Level 1 and Level 2 

screenings of buildings who can be an appropriately trained civil or structural 

engineering professional, architect, or graduate student with background in 

seismic evaluation or design of buildings. See Chapter 2. 

Low Seismicity Region: A region of low seismicity as defined per Table 2-

2. 

MCER: Risk-targeted maximum considered earthquake ground motions, as 

specified in ASCE/SEI 7-10 (ASCE, 2010) and ASCE/SEI 41-13. These 

ground motions are the basis for the Third Edition scores. 

Moderate Seismicity Region: A region of moderate seismicity as defined in 

Table 2-2. 

Moderately High Seismicity Region: A region of moderately high 

seismicity as defined in Table 2-2. The Moderately High seismicity region 

has stronger seismicity than the Moderate seismicity region and less 

seismicity than the High seismicity region. 

Post-Benchmark Score Modifier: A Score Modifier applied to buildings 

build after the benchmark year. 

Pre-Code Score Modifier: A Score Modifier that is used to identify a 

building built before the pre-code year. 

Pre-Code Year: The year that seismic codes were initially adopted and 

enforced. See Chapter 2. 

Pre-Field Activities: The portion work in a rapid visual screening program 

that occurs before the actual field screening. It includes pre-field planning, 

selection and modification of Data Collection Forms, selection and training 

of screening personnel, and acquisition and review of pre-field data. See 

Chapter 2. 

Pre-Field Planning: A subset of pre-field activities that includes selection 

and development of a record-keeping system, development of an electronic 

scoring tool if desired, compilation and development of seismic hazard maps. 

Program Manager: The entity that will manage the RVS program on behalf 

of the RVS Authority, such as a building department, qualified technical 

branch of government, or outside consultant. See Chapter 2. 

ROVER (Rapid Observation of Vulnerability and Estimation of Risk): 

Free mobile software for pre- and post-earthquake building safety screening, 

developed by FEMA. See Chapter 1. 

Rapid Visual Screening (RVS) Authority: The entity that has decided to 

conduct an RVS program and will use the results. This could include a state 

FEMA P-154 H: Glossary, Abbreviations, and Symbols H-3 
 

 

 

 

 

legislature, city council, school district, or private building owner. See 

Chapter 2. 

Sanborn Map: Maps, published for the insurance industry, that provide 

information about building attributes including year built, size and structural 

type. See Chapter 2. 

Score Modifier: Values that are added (or subtracted) from the Basic Score 

to arrive at a Final Score. The Score Modifiers are related to observed 

seismic performance attributes. 

Seismic Force-Resisting System: That part of the structural system that has 

been considered in the design to provide the required resistance to the 

seismic forces. 

Soil Type: Soil is classified in FEMA P-154 in accordance with ASCE/SEI 

7-10. There are six types of soil, ranging from Type A to Type F. Site Class 

is an analogous term. See Chapter 2. 

Supervising Engineer: The individual that will provide the technical 

expertise necessary to run the RVS program. See Chapter 2. 

Very High Seismicity Region: A region of seismicity as defined in Table 

2-2. 

Abbreviations 

RVS Rapid Visual Screening 

URM Unreinforced Masonry 

Symbols 

M The sum of all Level 2 modifiers except PL2 and VL2. See Chapter 4. 

PL1 Level 1 Plan Irregularity Modifier. See Chapter 3. 

PL2 Level 2 Plan Irregularity Modifier. See Chapter 4. 

S’ Adjusted baseline Score (used in the calculation of the Final Level 2 

Score). See Chapter 4. 

S1 The spectral acceleration response at a period of 1.0 seconds. See 

Chapter 2. 

SL1 Final Level 1 Score. See Chapter 3. 

SL2 Final Level 2 Score. See Chapter 4. 

SMIN Minimum Score. See Chapter 3. 

SS The spectral acceleration response at a period of 0.2 seconds. See 

Chapter 2. 

H-4 H: Glossary, Abbreviations, and Symbols FEMA P-154 
VL1 Level 1 Vertical Irregularity Modifier. See Chapter 3. 

VL2 Level 2 Vertical Irregularity Modifier. See Chapter 4. 

VS

30 Shear wave velocity in the upper 30 meters of soil. It is used to 

determine the soil type. See Chapters 2 and 6. 

FEMA P-154 H: Glossary, Abbreviations, and Symbols H-5 

Illustration Credits 

Illustration and figure credits are provided below, unless referenced with the 

figure. All remaining figures and illustrations were prepared by the project 

team. 

Credit Figure Number 

Charles Scawthorn 3-5, 3-27, 3-31, 3-33, 3-42, 3-43, 7-8, 7-9, 7-15, D-1, 

D-2, D-3, D-4, D-5, E-1, E-3, E-5, E-7, E-8, E-9, E-10, 

E-13, E-14, E-15, E-16, E-17, E-18, E-20, E-21, E-23, 

E-25, E-26, E-27, E-28, E-31, E-32, E-33, E-35, E-36, 

E-37, E-39, E-41, E-43, E-45, E-49, E-50, E-52, E-53, 

E-54, F-5, F-8, F-9, F-10, F-12, F-12, G-7, G-8, G-9, 

G-10, G-11, G-12, G-13; Figures in Table 3-1, Table 

D-1 (except a and b), Table D-2, Table D-3 (except f 

and g) 

Kit Wong 3-40, 3-41, D-6, D-8, D-9, D-10, D-13, D-14, D-15, D16, D-17, E-42, E-44; Figures in Table D-1 a and b, 

Table D-3 f and g 

Richard Ranous 7-5, 7-6, 7-11, 7-13, F-11 

Sanborn Maps 2-4, 2-5 

Robert Bruce D-7 

James Stratta E-30 

FEMA P-154 Illustration Credits I-1 

References 

Allen, E., 1985, Fundamentals of Building Construction and Methods, John 

Wiley and Sons, New York. 

ASCE, 2003, Seismic Evaluation of Existing Buildings, ASCE/SEI 31-03, 

American Society of Civil Engineers, Reston, Virginia. 

ASCE, 2007, Seismic Evaluation and Retrofit of Existing Buildings, 

ASCE/SEI 41-06, American Society of Civil Engineers, Reston, 

Virginia. 

ASCE, 2010, Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and Other Structures, 

ASCE/SEI 7-10, American Society of Civil Engineers, Reston, Virginia. 

ASCE, 2014, Seismic Evaluation and Retrofit of Existing Buildings, 

ASCE/SEI 41-13, American Society of Civil Engineers, Reston, 

Virginia, in press. 

ATC, 1987, Evaluating the Seismic Resistance of Existing Buildings, 

ATC-14, Applied Technology Council, Redwood City, California. 

ATC, 1992, Procedures for Building Seismic Rehabilitation (Interim Report), 

ATC-26-4, Applied Technology Council, Redwood City, California. 

ATC, 2005, Field Manual: Postearthquake Safety Evaluation of Buildings, 

Second Edition, ATC-20-1, Applied Technology Council, Redwood 

City, California. 

ATC, 2010, Here Today—Here Tomorrow: The Road to Earthquake 

Resilience in San Francisco: Post-Earthquake Repair and Retrofit, ATC52-4, prepared by the Applied Technology Council for the San Francisco 

Department of Building Inspection, Redwood City, California. 

DSA, 2011, “Design and construction requirements for relocatable 

buildings,” California Division of State Architect Interpretation of 

Regulations 16-1, revised October 11. 

FEMA, 1987, National Multihazard Survey Instructions, FEMA TR-84, 

Federal Emergency Management Agency, Washington, D.C. 

FEMA P-154 J: References J-1 
FEMA, 1988a, Rapid Visual Screening of Buildings for Potential Seismic 

Hazards: A Handbook, FEMA 154, prepared by the Applied Technology 

Council for the Federal Emergency Management Agency, Washington, 

D.C. 

FEMA, 1988b, Rapid Visual Screening of Buildings for Potential Seismic 

Hazards: Supporting Documentation, FEMA 155, prepared by the 

Applied Technology Council for the Federal Emergency Management 

Agency, Washington, D.C. 

FEMA, 1992, NEHRP Handbook for the Seismic Evaluation of Existing 

Buildings, FEMA 178, prepared by the Building Seismic Safety Council 

for the Federal Emergency Management Agency, Washington, D.C. 

FEMA, 1994a, Typical Costs for Seismic Rehabilitation of Buildings, Second 

Edition, Volume 1: Summary, FEMA 156, Federal Emergency 

Management Agency, Washington, D.C. 

FEMA, 1994b, Seismic Rehabilitation of Federal Buildings, A Benefit/Cost 

Model, Volume 1: A User’s Manual, FEMA 255, Federal Emergency 

Management Agency, Washington, D.C. 

FEMA, 1994c, Seismic Rehabilitation of Federal Buildings, A Benefit/Cost 

Model, Volume 1: Supporting Documentation, FEMA 256, Federal 

Emergency Management Agency, Washington, D.C. 

FEMA, 1995, Typical Costs for Seismic Rehabilitation of Buildings, Second 

Edition, Volume 2: Supporting Documentation, FEMA157, Federal 

Emergency Management Agency, Washington, D.C. 

FEMA, 1997a, NEHRP Guidelines for the Seismic Rehabilitation of 

Buildings, FEMA 273, prepared by the Applied Technology Council for 

the Building Seismic Safety Council with funding by the Federal 

Emergency Management Agency, Washington, D.C. 

FEMA, 1997b, NEHRP Commentary on the Guidelines for the Seismic 

Rehabilitation of Buildings, FEMA 274, prepared by the Applied 

Technology Council for the Building Seismic Safety Council with 

funding by the Federal Emergency Management Agency, Washington, 

D.C. 

FEMA, 1998, Handbook for Seismic Evaluation of Buildings—A 

Prestandard, FEMA 310, prepared by the American Society of Civil 

Engineers for the Federal Emergency Management Agency, Washington, 

D.C. 

J-2 J: References FEMA P-154 
FEMA P-154 J: References J-3 

FEMA, 1999a, Evaluation of Earthquake Damaged Concrete and Masonry 

Wall Buildings: Basic Procedures Manual, FEMA 306, prepared by the 

Applied Technology Council for the Federal Emergency Management 

Agency, Washington, D.C. 

FEMA, 1999b, Evaluation of Earthquake Damaged Concrete and Masonry 

Wall Buildings: Technical Resources, FEMA 307, prepared by the 

Applied Technology Council for the Federal Emergency Management 

Agency, Washington, D.C. 

FEMA, 1999c, The Repair of Earthquake Damaged Concrete and Masonry 

Wall Buildings, FEMA 308, prepared by the Applied Technology 

Council for the Federal Emergency Management Agency, Washington, 

D.C. 

FEMA, 1999d, Earthquake Loss Estimation Methodology, HAZUS, 

Technology Manual, Volume 1, prepared by the National Institute of 

Building Sciences for the Federal Emergency Management Agency, 

Washington, D.C. 

FEMA, 2000a, Recommended Postearthquake Evaluation and Repair 

Criteria for Welded Steel Moment-Frame Buildings, FEMA 352, 

prepared by the SAC Joint Venture, a partnership of the Structural 

Engineers Association of California, the Applied Technology Council, 

and California Universities for Research in Earthquake Engineering, for 

the Federal Emergency Management Agency, Washington, D.C. 

FEMA, 2000b, Prestandard and Commentary for the Seismic Rehabilitation 

of Buildings, FEMA 356, prepared by the American Society of Civil 

Engineers for the Federal Emergency Management Agency, Washington, 

D.C. 

FEMA, 2002a, Rapid Visual Screening of Buildings for Potential Seismic 

Hazards: A Handbook, Second Edition, FEMA 154, prepared by the 

Applied Technology Council for the Federal Emergency Management 

Agency, Washington, D.C. 

FEMA, 2002b, Rapid Visual Screening of Buildings for Potential Seismic 

Hazards: Supporting Documentation, Second Edition, FEMA 155, 

prepared by the Applied Technology Council for the Federal Emergency 

Management Agency, Washington, D.C. 

FEMA, 2003, Multi-hazard Loss Estimation Methodology, Earthquake 

Model, HAZUS-MH MR1, Advanced Engineering Building Module, 

Technical and User’s Manual, developed by the National Institute of 
Building Sciences for the Federal Emergency Management Agency, 

Washington, D.C. 

FEMA, 2006, Techniques for the Seismic Rehabilitation of Existing 

Buildings, FEMA 547, developed by Rutherford + Chekene under a 

contract with the National Institute of Science and Technology, Federal 

Emergency Management Agency, Washington, D.C. 

FEMA, 2009a, Multi-Hazard Loss Estimation Methodology, Earthquake 

Model, HAZUS-MH MR4 Technical Manual, developed by the National 

Institute of Building Sciences for the Federal Emergency Management 

Agency, Washington, D.C. 

FEMA, 2009b, Quantification of Building Seismic Performance Factors, 

FEMA P-695, prepared by the Applied Technology Council for the 

Federal Emergency Management Agency, Washington, D.C. 

FEMA, 2012a, Simplified Seismic Assessment of Detached, Single-Family, 

Wood-Frame Dwellings, FEMA P-50, prepared by the Applied 

Technology Council for the Federal Emergency Management Agency, 

Washington, D.C. 

FEMA, 2012b, Seismic Retrofit Guidelines for Detached, Single-Family, 

Wood-Frame Dwellings, FEMA P-50-1, prepared by the Applied 

Technology Council for the Federal Emergency Management Agency, 

Washington, D.C. 

FEMA, 2012c, Seismic Evaluation and Retrofit of Multi-Unit Wood-Frame 

Buildings With Weak First Stories, FEMA P-807, prepared by the 

Applied Technology Council for the Federal Emergency Management 

Agency, Washington, D.C. 

FEMA, 2012d, Seismic Performance Assessment of Buildings, Volume 1 – 

The Methodology, FEMA P-58-1, prepared by the Applied Technology 

Council for the Federal Emergency Management Agency, Washington, 

D.C. 

FEMA, 2012e, Reducing the Risks of Nonstructural Earthquake Damage – A 

Practical Guide, Fourth Edition, prepared by the Applied Technology 

Council for the Federal Emergency Management Agency, FEMA E-74, 

Washington, D.C. Available at: http://www.fema.gov 

/earthquake-publications/fema-e-74-reducing-risks-nonstructuralearthquake-damage. Last accessed on September 17, 2013. 

J-4 J: References FEMA P-154 
 

FEMA, 2014, Rapid Observation of Vulnerability and Estimation of Risk, 

FEMA P-154 ROVER CD Version 2, prepared by the Applied 

Technology Council for the Federal Emergency Management Agency, 

Washington, D.C. 

FEMA, 2015, Rapid Visual Screening of Buildings for Potential Seismic 

Hazards: Supporting Documentation, Third Edition, FEMA P-155, 

prepared by the Applied Technology Council for the Federal Emergency 

Management Agency, Washington, D.C. 

ICBO, 1973, 1994, 1997, Uniform Building Code, International Conference 

of Building Officials, Whittier, California. 

ICC, 2012, 2012 International Building Code, International Code Council, 

Washington, D.C. 

Klein, F.W., Frankel, A.D., Mueller, C.S., Wesson, R.L., and Okubo, P.G., 

2001, “Seismic hazard in Hawaii: High rate of large earthquakes and 

probabilistic ground motion maps,” Bulleting of the Seismological 

Society of America, Vol. 91, pp. 479-498. 

Lagorio, H., Friedman, H., and Wong, K., 1986, Issues for Seismic 

Strengthening of Existing Buildings: A Practical Guide for Architects, 

Center for Environmental Design, University of California at Berkeley, 

California. 

Lewis, D., 2007, Statewide Seismic Needs Assessment: Implementation of 

Oregon 2005 Senate Bill 2 Relating to Public Safety, Earthquakes, and 

Seismic Rehabilitation of Public Buildings, State of Oregon Department 

of Geology and Mineral Industries, Open File Report 07-020, 2007. 

Available at: http://www.oregongeology.org/sub/projects/rvs 

/default.htm. Last accessed on September 17, 2013. 

National Conference of States on Building Codes and Standards, 1996, 

Minimizing Damage and Repair Costs to Manufactured Homes During 

an Earthquake, prepared by the National Conference of States on 

Building Codes and Standards, Inc. for the Department of Housing and 

Urban Development (HUD), Washington, D.C. Available at: 

http://www.huduser.org/publications/pdf/pdrbrch.pdf. Last accessed 

September 24, 2013. 

NBS, 1980, Development of a Probability Based Load Criterion for 

American National Standard A58.1, NBS Special Publication 577, 

National Bureau of Standards, Washington, D.C. 

FEMA P-154 J: References J-5 
Packard, R.T., editor, 1981, Ramsay/Sleeper Architectural Graphic 

Standards, Seventh Edition, John Wiley & Sons, New York. 

Petersen, M.D., Moschetti, M.P., Powers, P.M., Mueller, C.S., Haller, K.M., 

Frankel, A.D., Zeng, Y., Rezaeian, S., Harmsen, S.C., Boyd, O.S., Field, 

N., Chen, R., Rukstales, K.S., Luco, N., Wheeler, R.L., Williams, R.A., 

and Olsen, A.H., 2014, Documentation for the 2014 Update of the United 

States National Seismic Hazard Maps, U.S. Geological Survey OpenFile Report 2014–1091, 243 p. 

Scawthorn, C., editor, 1986. Techniques for Rapid Assessment of Seismic 

Vulnerability, American Society of Civil Engineers, New York, New 

York. 

Steinbrugge, K., 1982, Earthquakes, Volcanoes, and Tsunamis, An Anatomy 

of Hazards, Skandia American Group, New York. 

The New American Library, 1980, A Field Guide to American Architecture, 

New York, New York. 

USGS, 2013a, Design Maps Summary Report, http://earthquake.usgs.gov 

/designmaps/usapp/. Last accessed September 17, 2013. 

USGS, 2013b, Global Vs30 Map Server, http://earthquake.usgs.gov 

/hazards/apps/vs30/. Last accessed September 17, 2013. 

USGS, 2014a, http://earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquakes/states/seismicity. Last 

accessed September 20, 2014. 

Utah Seismic Safety Commission and Structural Engineers Association of 

Utah, 2011, Utah Students at Risk - The Earthquake Hazards of School 

Buildings, February, http://ussc.utah.gov/students_at_risk.html. Last 

accessed on September 17, 2013. 

Wang, Y., Hasenberg, C.S., and Harguth, V., 2004, Earthquake Safety and 

Sidewalk Survey Scores in Clackamas County Schools, Clackamas 

County, Oregon, 2004, Oregon Department of Geology and Mineral 

Industries Open File Report O-04-16. 

Wang, Y., and Goettel, K. A., 2007, “Enhanced Rapid Visual Screening (ERVS) method for prioritization of seismic retrofits in Oregon,” Oregon 

Department of Geology and Mineral Industries (DOGAMI), Special 

Paper 39. 

Wesson, R. L., Boyd, O. S., Mueller, C. S., Bufe, C. G., Frankel, A. D., 

Petersen, M. D., 2007, Revision of Time-Independent Probabilistic 

J-6 J: References FEMA P-154 
Seismic Hazard Maps for Alaska, U.S. Geological Survey Open-File 

Report 2007-1043, 33 p. 

FEMA P-154 J: References J-7 

 

 

ATC Management and Oversight 

Christopher Rojahn (Program Executive) 

Applied Technology Council 

201 Redwood Shores Parkway, Suite 240 

Redwood City, California 94065
 

Jon A. Heintz (Program Manager) 

Applied Technology Council 

201 Redwood Shores Parkway, Suite 240 

Redwood City, California 94065
 

FEMA Oversight 

Mike Mahoney (Project Officer)
 

Federal Emergency Management Agency 

500 C Street, SW, Room 416
 

Washington, DC 20472
 

Mai Tong (Task Monitor)
 

Federal Emergency Management Agency 

500 C Street, SW, Room 416
 

Washington, DC 20472
 

Project Technical Committee 

Bret Lizundia (Project Technical Director) 

Rutherford + Chekene Consulting Engineers
 

55 Second Street, Suite 600 

San Francisco, California 94105
 

Michael Griffin 

CCS Group, Inc. 

1415 Elbridge Payne Rd., Suite 265
 

Chesterfield, Missouri 63017
 

William T. Holmes 

Rutherford + Chekene Consulting Engineers
 

55 Second Street, Suite 600 

San Francisco, California 94105
 

Project Participants 

Ayse Hortacsu (Project Manager) 

Applied Technology Council 

201 Redwood Shores Parkway, Suite 240 

Redwood City, California 94065
 

Thomas McLane (Project Manager) 

Applied Technology Council 

201 Redwood Shores Parkway, Suite 240 

Redwood City, California 94065
 

Erin Walsh (Task Monitor)
 

Federal Emergency Management Agency 

500 C Street, SW, Room 416
 

Washington, DC 20472
 

John Gillengerten (Technical Monitor)
 

5155 Holly Drive 

Shingle Springs, California 95682
 

Brian Kehoe 

Wiss Janney Elstner Associates, Inc.
 

2000 Powell Street, Suite 1650
 

Emeryville, California 94608 

Keith Porter 

SPA Risk, LLC 

2501 Bellaire Street 

Denver, Colorado 80207
 

Barry Welliver 

BHW Engineers 

13623 South Bridle Trail Road 

Draper, Utah 84020
 

FEMA P-154 K: Project Participants K-1 
 

 

Project Review Panel 

T. Charles Scawthorn (Chair) 

SPA Risk LLC 

P.O. Box 3326 

San Francisco, California 94119 

Timothy Brown 

Bureau of Reclamation 

P.O. Box 25007, Mail Code 86-68110 

Denver, Colorado 80225 

Melvyn Green 

Melvyn Green & Associates 

21311 Hawthorne Blvd., Suite 230 

Torrance, California 90503 

Laura Kelly 

U.S. Coast Guard Base 

Kodiak Cape Sarichef St., N38 

PO Box 195025 

Kodiak, Alaska 99619 

Project Working Group 

Sarah Durphy 

Rutherford + Chekene Consulting Engineers 

55 Second Street, Suite 600 

San Francisco, California 94105 

Charles A. Kircher 

Kircher & Associates 

1121 San Antonio Road, Suite D-202 

Palo Alto, California 94303 

Illustrators 

Andrew Bishop 

Wiss Janney Elstner Associates, Inc. 

2000 Powell Street, Suite 1650 

Emeryville, California 94608 

Workshop Participants 

John Aho 

CH2M Hill, Inc. 

2015 Shepherdia Drive 

Anchorage, Alaska 99508 

Stephanie King 

1045 Fulton Street 

Palo Alto, California 94301 

John Osteraas 

Exponent 

149 Commonwealth Drive 

Menlo Park, California 94025 

Steven Sweeney 

U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development 

Center Construction Engineering Research 

Laboratory 

P.O. Box 9005 

Champaign, Illinois 61826 

Christine Theodoropoulos 

Cal Poly San Luis Obispo 

College of Architecture & Env. Design 

San Luis Obispo, California 94407 

Nicolas Luco
 

Geologic Hazards Science Center
 

U.S. Geological Survey 

P.O. Box 25046, MS 966
 

Lakewood, Colorado 80225
 

Kenneth Rukstales 

Geologic Hazards Science Center
 

U.S. Geologic Survey 

P.O. Box 25046, MS 966
 Lakewood, Colorado 80225
 

Scott Hiner 

Creative Marketing Resources
 

447 Sheridan Circle 

Livermore, California 94551
 

Rebecca Collins 

Coughlin Porter Lundeen, Inc. 

413 Pine Street, Suite 300
 

Seattle, Washington 98101 

K-2 K: Project Participants FEMA P-154 
Murat Saatcioglu 

University of Ottawa, 

Dept. of Civil Engineering 

161 Louis Pasteur Street 

Ottawa, Ontario, K1N 6N5 Canada 

Alan Scott 

KPFF Consulting Engineers 

1630 Des Peres Road, Suite 100 

St. Louis, Missouri 63131 

Hope Seligson 

MMI Engineering 

2100 Main Street, Suite 150 

Huntington Beach, California 92648 

Nilesh Shome 

Risk Management Solutions 

1133 Langton Drive 

San Ramon, California 94582 

Jeff Soulages 

Intel Corp. 

2501 NW 229th Street, MS: RS6-101 

Hillsboro, Oregon 97124 

Yumei Wang 

Oregon Dept. of Geology & Mineral Industries 

800 NE Oregon Street, #28 

Portland, Oregon 97232 

FEMA P-154 K: Project Participants K-3 


FEMA P-154

Catalog No. 08211-2