ICSSC TR-9

WORKSHOPS CONVENED BY THE

INTERAGENCY COMMITTEE ON SEISMIC

SAFETY IN CONSTRUCTION DURING 1 984

Edgar V. Leyendecker

George E. Turner

S. George Fattal

Center for Building Technology

U.S. Department of Commerce

National Bureau of Standards

Gaithersburg, MD 20899

May 1985

Prepared for use by:

Interagency Committee on Seismic Safety in Construction

Sponsored by:

Federal Emergency Management Agency

Washington, DC 20472

1 / V

NATIONAL

, BUREAU /

0F

*' STANDARDS QC

100

.U56

#85-3161

1985 e.3i

NBSIR 85-3161 ICSSC TR-9

WORKSHOPS CONVENED BY THE INTERAGENCY COMMITTEE ON SEISMIC

SAFETY IN CONSTRUCTION DURING 1984

Edgar V. Leyendecker

George E. Turner

S. George Fattal

Center for Building Technology

National Bureau of Standards

U.S. Department of Commerce

Gaithersburg, MD 20899

May 1985

Prepared for use by:

Interagency Committee on Seismic Safety in Construction

Sponsored by:

Federal Emergency Management Agency

Washington, DC 20472

CONTENTS

Page

Abstract 1

Introduction 1

Workshop on Implementation of Federal Seismic Provisions in

the Building Programs of Federal Agencies - March 19, 1984... 3

Workshop on Lifelines - March 20, 1984 11

Workshop on Seismic Zoning - March 21, 1984 15

Workshop on Evaluation of Existing Buildings - December 6, 1984 19

Closure 23

References 24

iii

WORKSHOPS CONVENED BY THE INTERAGENCY COMMITTEE ON

SEISMIC SAFETY IN CONSTRUCTION DURING 1984

ABSTRACT

In an e^^ort to Inform Federal agencies about the most

recent development on various earthquake hazards mitigation

topics, Informal workshops were convened by the Interagency Committee on Seismic Safety In Construction In Was king ton , VC during

1984 . This report presents summaries o& tke workshop series

wklck Included tke subjects o£ Implementation o £ seismic provisions k°r Federal buildings, lifelines, seismic risk maps, and

evaluation o £ existing buildings. Tke summaries provide an overview o £ tke major topics discussed. Where applicable , recommendations that resulted are given.

Key Words: Buildings: building design; codes and standards

;

earthquake: existing buildings; Federal workshops

;

lifelines; seismic zoning

INTRODUCTION

Earthquakes have caused, and can cause in the future,

enormous loss of life, injury, destruction of property, and

economic and social disruption. Such losses, destruction, and

disruption can be reduced substantially through the development

and implementation of earthquake hazards reduction measures.

Recognizing these needs, the Congress passed the Earthquake

Hazards Reduction Act of 1977 (P.L. 95-124), and the National

Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program (NEHRP) was established the

following year. The Act and the NEHRP acknowledge that the

Federal government must set an example for others to emulate by

its own actions, including the institution of more effective

hazards mitigation measures in its own facilities.

The NEHRP established the Interagency Committee on Seismic

Safety in Construction (ICSSC) in 1978 to assist the Federal

departments and agencies involved in construction to develop

earthquake hazards reduction measures and to incorporate them in

their ongoing programs. These measures will be based on nationally recognized standards and practices to the extent feasible

and consistent with Federal responsibilities.

In an effort to use the most recent developments on various

earthquake hazards mitigation topics, four educational workshops

were convened by the ICSSC in Washington, DC during 1984. The

workshop series included the subjects of (1) implementation of

seismic provisions for Federal buildings, (2) lifelines, (3) seismic risk maps, and (4) evaluation of existing buildings.

1
The workshops provided a forum for presenting and discussing

the seismic regulations and policies of Federal agencies; presenting and discussing current research in earthquake engineering; discussing implications of the various seismic source zones;

and discussing recommendations for seismic regulations and policies of Federal agencies.

The summaries provide an overview of the topics discussed.

Where applicable, recommendations are given.

2
WORKSHOP ON IMPLEMENTING FEDERAL SEISMIC PROVISIONS IN THE

BUILDING PROGRAMS OF FEDERAL AGENCIES - MARCH 19 f 1984

Participants (A list of agency acronyms is included in table 1.)

E.V. Leyendecker (Moderator and Recorder) NBS

G. E. Turner (Recorder) NBS

J. M. Bayne NASA

E. R. Bell USDA

A. W. Cain USDA

M. S. Chawla GSA

R. M . Chung NBS

D. R. Denton TVA

J. S. Dodd BUREC

W. W. Hakala NSF

J. R. Hill DOE

G. S. Hsiung GSA

S. C. Liu NSF

J. A. Manchester NASA

R. D. McConnell VA

T. J. Moran EPA

U. Morelli FEMA

D. Ralston USDA

W. D. Rust GSA

C. Spyropoulos HUD

K. Thirumalai NSF

J. V. Tyrrell NAVFAC

D. R. widener VA

D. White HUD

R. N. Wright NBS

S. T. Wu NBS

M. Yachnis NAVFAC

WORKSHOP HIGHLIGHTS

The workshop was sponsored by the ICSSC Subcommittee on

Standards for New and Existing Buildings (Subcommittee 1) and

moderated by its chairman Edgar V. Leyendecker. The workshop

objective was the identification and evaluation of the effects of

current Federal agency policy and requirements on the adoption

and use of Federal seismic design provisions, and the development

of recommendations for implementing uniform provisions considering agency requirements.

The first half of the morning session included a presentation by Leyendecker that gave an overview of existing seismic

codes and standards and their use in the private sector. The

second half of the morning session included presentations by

seven Federal agencies concerning their seismic policy and requirements. The overview is presented below in some detail since

it sets the stage for this and other workshops.

3
Seismic risk varies throughout the U.S. and seismic design

criteria frequently use zone maps such as the one in figure 1 as

a measure of risk. The seismic risk is smallest for Zone 0 and

largest for Zone 4. Design criteria do not change within a zone.

The majority of construction in the U.S. is undertaken by

the private sector and regulated by local government. These

local regulations are in turn, based largely on provisions of one

of the three model building codes and/or voluntary national

standards. Regulations for Federal buildings tend to be similar

to the model codes and national standards, and in some instances,

defer to local requirements. Some Federal agencies' policies are

described by representatives of the Federal agencies later in

this workshop summary. The following material is background for

their presentations and for several of the subsequent workshops.

Structural Engineers Association of California (SEAOC)

The report "Recommended Lateral Force Requirements and Commentary," prepared by Structural Engineers Association of

California [15] 1 contains requirements which

"are intended to provide criteria to fulfill life safety

concepts. It is emphasized that the recommended design

levels are not directly comparable to recorded or estimated

peak ground accelerations from earthquakes. They are, however, related to the effective peak accelerations to be

expected in seismic events. More specifically with regard

to earthquakes, structures designed in conformance with the

provisions and principles set forth therein should, in

general, be able to:

1. Resist minor earthquakes without damage?

2. Resist moderate earthquakes without structural damage,

but with some nonstructural damage;

3. Resist major earthquakes, of the intensity of severity

of the strongest experienced in California, without

collapse, but with some structural as well as nonstructural damage.

In most structures it is expected that structural damage,

even in a major earthquake, could be limited to repairable

damage. This, however, depends upon a number of factors,

including the type of construction selected for the

structure .

1 Numbers in brackets refer to references at the end of the text.

4
Most current seismic design criteria can be traced to the

SEAOC recommendations. Inherent in this design approach is the

acceptance of inelastic behavior of the building structure. Some

damage is anticipated although the extent depends on the magnitude of the earthquake. Although this is the normal philosophy

for building design, it might not be acceptable in all instances.

Buildings which must remain functional following an earthquake,

such as a hospital, require extra consideration.

The following description of the technical requirements of

the SEAOC recommendations is similar to that given by Forell [10].

The basic design procedure involves determination of an equivalent static base shear 2 which is applied to the structure in a specified manner. The design formula for the base shear, V = ZIKSCW, takes into consideration the seismicity of the area (Z),

the importance of the structure (I), the type of the lateral

resisting system (K)

,

the response of the structure (C)

,

which is

related to its fundamental period of vibration, the site structure interaction (S)

,

and the effective inertial mass of the

structure (W)

.

The recommendations have provisions for the vertical and horizontal distribution of the base shear force that

take into consideration the higher modes of vibration in the

vertical distribution, torsional forces due to eccentricities,

and overturning. Limitations are also placed on allowable drift.

Three recommendations cover performance of structural systems by

establishing minimum limits of ductility, deformation, compatibility, and special detailing requirements. Specific requirements are included for concrete ductile moment-resisting space

frames, concrete shear walls and braced frames, and steel ductile

moment-resisting space frames.

In the formula for computation of base shear, the coefficient Z varies to reflect the seismicty of the region (zone) in

which the building is being designed. The SEAOC criteria do not

contain specific recommendations for values of Z other than a value of 1.0 for areas of highest seismicity. Other design

criteria do contain recommendations for Z which depend on the

seismic zone obtained from a zone map. These recommendations are

discussed later for the specific criteria.

The factor I varies between 1 and 1.5 depending upon the

function of the structure. A building such as a hospital has an

importance factor of 1.5.

‘•Many typical buildings can be designed using a static analysis

approach. Although a dynamic analysis may be required in some

instances, its primary benefit is to determine a better distribution of forces on the building rather than to alter the total

base shear.

5
Applied Technology Council (ATC)

A major resource document is the "Tentative Provisions for

the Development of Seismic Regulations for Buildings" [4] (prepared

by the Applied Technology Council, and published by the National

Bureau of Standards and subsequently referred to as the ATC

Provisions) . This report was published in 1978 as a state-ofthe-art document for seismic design.

The ATC Provisions, like the SEAOC criteria, involve computation of a total base shear which is then distributed on the

structure in a prescribed manner. However, the equations for

computation of the base shear and the distribution of the base

shear are different from SEAOC. The base shear formula V = C

SW

is a function of the seismic design coefficient (C

s

) and the

effective inertial mass of the structure (W) . Two equations are

provided for computation of the coefficient C

s

. Although the two

equations are different, both of them involve the use of a response modification factor that is a function of the construction type and material and a factor representing the seismic

intensity.

The response modification factor serves a purpose similar to

the K factor in the SEAOC criteria. It varies according to the

lateral load resisting system and is selected to allow inelastic

behavior similar to that allowed by SEAOC.

Two maps are provided for determination of the seismic

intensity factor, one in terms of effective peak acceleration and

the second in terms of effective peak velocity-related acceleration. Each map is divided into seven map areas (the larger the

number the higher the risk) , the effective peak velocity-related

acceleration map is shown in figure 2. The map areas are defined

by county lines in an effort to simplify difficulties associated

with crossing of political boundaries. Since the map areas are

based on accelerations, which in turn provide the basis for the

lateral force equations, the design base shear is related to

realistic ground motion intensities. These map areas do not

correspond to the zone map used to determine the Z factor. They

can, however, be related as in table 2. The numbers are also not

directly related to other measures of intensity such as the

Modified Mercalli scale.

The ATC Provisions do not use an importance factor to account for the occupancy or critical nature of a building. Instead, the Provisions divide buildings into three Seismic Hazard

Exposure Groups which consider these factors. A building is

rated as falling into a specific exposure group depending on its

use and this rating is combined with a Seismicity Index, which is

dependent upon the seismic map area, and used to determine a Seismic Performance Category applicable for the structure. The

Seismic Performance Category then spells out design and detailing

6
requirements. The more important a structure and the higher the

seismicity, the more stringent the design and detailing requirements become.

The report with amendments [31 has been evaluated by the

Building Seismic Safety Council in a national trial design program [14] . The Building Seismic Safety Council (BSSC) has published revised provisions following the conclusion of the trial

design program [5]. These provisions are currently being balloted by the BSSC.

National Standards

The American National Standards Institute publishes the ANSI

A58. 1-1982 "Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and Other Structures" [13] the only voluntary national loading standard in the

United States. The Standard contains requirements for earthquake

loads that are suitable for inclusion in building codes and other

design documents. The earthquake load requirements, as in the

case for other design approaches, assume that inelastic behavior

of the building will occur. Accordingly, earthquake design requires knowledge of the material behavior as well as the applied

loads. Since the ANSI Standard is a loads document, it provides

limited guidance on material behavior. Other national standards

such as that published by the American Concrete Institute [7] for

reinforced concrete design, must be selected for the specific

material type. The seismic design requirements contained in ANSI

A58. 1-1982 are similar to those contained in the SEAOC recommendations and in the Uniform Building Code [18] and parts of the

report "Tentative Provisions for the Development of Seismic Regulations for Buildings." The seismic risk map used in the ANSI

A58. 1-1982 Standard is based on work performed in developing the

ATC Provisions. Specifically, the information used in developing

the ATC map in figure 2, was used in developing the ANSI map

shown in figure 1. In order to maintain consistency with current

earthquake design practice, the ANSI map was divided into

Zones 0-4 for purposes of selection of the Zone coefficient Z.

The Z coefficients are shown in table 3.

Model Codes

There are three model codes in the United States. These are

the model codes published by the International Conference of

Building Officials - Uniform Building Code; Building Officials

and Code Administrators International, Inc. - Basic Building

Code; and Southern Building Code Congress International, Inc. - Standard Building Code. The Basic Building Code and the Standard

Building Code contain seismic provisions that are based on the

ANSI A58 Standard. However, the 1972 edition of ANSI A58 [6] is

referenced rather than the more recent 1982 edition [13] . There

are a number of differences between the two editions of the ANSI

Standard. A major difference is the map in the 1982 edition

7
which is based upon risk while the 1972 edition uses a map based

on information available in 1968 on the maximum size earthquake.

The equation for base shear in the 1982 edition also includes the

importance factor, I, which was not used in the earlier version.

The Uniform Building Code (UBC) contains seismic design

requirements which, for the most part, are based upon the recommendations of the Structural Engineers Association of California.

The base shear equation used in the UBC is essentially the same

as that used in the SEAOC recommendations and in the ANSI Standard. However, the Zone map used in the UBC is based upon the

maximum earthquake which has occurred in a region and thus has

different boundaries from the map used by ANSI. This zone map is

shown in figure 3. The principal difference between the two maps

is that the ANSI map reduces the required Z factor (used in

computing base shear) for many areas, particularly in the eastern

portion of the U.S. The ANSI committee also adopted a Z factor

of 1/8 for zone 0 rather than the value of 0 used in UBC. This

was done to allow removal of certain specific material requirements from the Standard. Other minor differences exist but these

are not discussed here.

These design guidelines and maps provide a background for

discussion of agency requirements. They apply primarily to

buildings - little is available for lifelines. The variation in

requirements and maps identify some of the difficulties in

achieving uniformity, among the agencies. Some agency practices

are discussed below.

Draft Seismic Standard for Federal Buildings

In 1981 a draft standard [11] containing provisions for the

reduction of earthquake hazards in Federal buildings was published. One purpose of the draft was to provide a uniform standard for use by all Federal agencies for the planning, design,

and construction of buildings, both within and outside the United

States. This was required as part of the NEHRP.

The standard was prepared by representatives of Federal

agencies as an adaptation of existing voluntary standards, model

building codes. Federal regulations, and research reports. The

standard is most closely related to the 1979 Uniform Building

Code. Although there are many differences with the UBC, owing to

different contexts, policies, and styles, the basic technical

approach to the analysis of seismic loads and the design of

buildings to resist such loads is the same. Substantial use was

also made of the "Tentative Provisions for the Development of

Seismic Regulations for Buildings" and ANSI A58. 1-1982. The zone

map is the same as in this standard. The seismic regulations of

the Veterans Administration, Army, Navy, Air Force, General Services Administration, and Department of Housing and Urban Development were all considered in the development of this standard.

8
The draft standard is primarily intended for new buildings.

Structures that are not associated with buildings are outside the

scope because their particular functional requirements and the

nature of hazard they present were not considered in developing

the requirements of the standard and because the idealization of

seismic loadings presented in this standard may not be an appropriate model for predicting their physical response to seismic

ground shaking. Another exception is that buildings and structures associated with nuclear power plants are subjected to the

more rigorous standards of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

Richard McConnell reported that the Veterans Administration

(VA) uses seismic provisions [12] that are recommended by an

advisory committee to the VA. The result of the committee's

recommendations is a set of seismic provisions similar to those

in the Uniform Building Code (UBC) . VA criteria requires site

specific determination of ground motion. Additions, deletions

and changes to the VA's seismic provisions may be recommended by

its advisory committee. Local requirements are also considered

and, if more stringent, are used instead of the VA criteria.

Michael Yachnis reported that the Department of Defense

(DOD) uses the seismic provisions in the Tri-Services Manual

[161. The provisions are similar to those in the UBC and are

supplemented with construction details. Yachnis pointed out that

each branch of the services also has its own design manual for

medical facilities. Additions, deletions, and changes to the

Manual, along with deviations from it, are made by an ad hoc DOD

committee

.

James Hill reported that the Department of Energy (DOE) uses

the seismic provisions in its own design procedures. The DOE

provisions require the same levels of design as does the UBC. A

separate set of provisions is used for nuclear power plant and

test facility designs. Additions, deletions and changes to the

seismic provisions must be evaluated and recommended by a board

within DOE.

William Rust reported that the General Services Administration (GSA) uses its own design guide [8] that contains

seismic provisions based on design levels one, two, and three of

the UBC. Additions, deletions and changes to the provisions are

accommodated through GSA Public Buildings Service review and

approval

.

David Ralston reported that the Department of Agriculture

(DOA) reference existing codes and standards in lieu of developing their own. Within the DOA, the Soil Conservation Service,

Forest Service, Farmers Home Administration, and the Rural Electrification Administration all use or require the use of seismic

provisions. Additions, deletions and changes to the codes and

9
standards in use are accommodated through DOA review and

approval

.

Constantine Spyropoulos reported that the Department of

Mousing and Urban Development (HUD) references the 1973 UBC [17]

seismic zone map and ANSI A58. 1-1372 in its minimum property

standards. In situations where local codes have more stringent

requirements than the HUD references, they supersede those references. Additions, deletions and changes to the references are

accommodated through HUD review and approval plus publication in

the Federal Register.

Thomas Moran reported that the Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA) defers to the use of state and local codes as applicable. References to state and local codes are contained in an

EPA handbook of procedures. In order for EPA to establish its

own seismic provisions, an executive order would be required.

The afternoon session included discussions on the feasibility and method of implementing uniform seismic design provisions for Federal buildings. As part of the afternoon session,

each agency representative to the ICSSC was requested to provide

the information shown in tables 4 and 5. Analysis of the submissions indicated that the majority of the agencies that designed

and occupied buildings used criteria similar to that contained in

the Uniform Building Code. Agencies which leased buildings or

constructed them under grant programs tended to use local building codes. The majority of the agency representatives agreed

that common Federal seismic provisions are desirable provided

they allowed flexibility for agency requirements. Common provisions would eliminate such things as different design standards

being used by different agencies constructing or regulating construction within the same seismic zone.

The discussion resulted in the following recommendations:

1. FEMA should draft an executive order requiring agencies

to adopt common seismic provisions for new buildings.

2. The order should be flexible to allow for the inclusion

of the differing special requirements of the various

agencies

.

3. The order should reference the Draft Seismic Standard

developed by the ICSSC Subcommittee 1 as the common seismic

provision.

4. Only one agency should publish the Draft Seismic Standard in its announcement in the Federal Register and all

other agencies should reference its original publication in

their annoucements

.

10
WORKSHOP ON LIFELINES - MARCH 20, 1984

Participants

C. F. Scheffey (Moderator)

G. E. Turner (Recorder)...

Teoman Ariman

E.R. Bell

B. Bender

M.S. Chawla

J . Cooper

D. R. Denton

J.D. Dodd

J.W. Foss

D. G. Heald

J. R. Hill

H. S. Hsiung

E. V. Leyendecker

T. J. Moran

U. Morelli

D . j . Nyman

I. J. Oppenheim

W.O. Sullivan

W.D. Rust

A . J . Schiff

S.K. Takahashi

K. Thirumalai

J

.

V . Tyrrell

D.E. White

D.R. Widener

S.T. Wu

DOT

NBS

University of Tulsa

USDA

USGS

GSA

DOT

TVA

BUREC

Bell Communications Research Inc.

USDA

DOE

GSA

NBS

EPA

FEMA

.Structural Mechanics Associates

Carnegie-Mellon University

DOT

GSA

Purdue University

NAVFAC

NSF

NAVFAC

NAVFAC

VA

NBS

WORKSHOP HIGHLIGHTS

The workshop was sponsored by the ICSSC Subcommittee on

Lifelines (Subcommittee 2) and moderated by its chairman, Charles

F. Scheffey. He opened the workshop with a general introduction

to the ICSSC and gave an overview of the scope and character of

lifeline systems.

Ugo Morelli gave an overview of the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) and the lead agency support that FEMA

provides the ICSSC. In addition, Morelli described FEMA's programs in seismic design, earthquake preparedness, and community

education.

K. Thirumalai reported on the types of earthquake engineering research being supported by the National Science Foundation (NSF) . Current funding categories are siting and geotechnical earthquake engineering; lifeline earthquake engineering

research; and lifeline system locations. The primary issues

associated with lifelines research are:

11
1. The complexity and diversity of lifeline earthquake

engineering

.

2. The assessment of research priorities.

3. The lack of techniques for simulating earthquake damage

to lifeline systems.

4. The need to establish a lifelines data base.

Thirumalai's presentation prompted a discussion among the participants about the lack of design data and guidelines available on

the topic of lifeline engineering.

Douglas Nyman reported on the activities of ASCE's Technical

Council on Lifeline Earthquake Engineering (TCLEE) . Nyman mentioned four major lifeline categories: energy, water, transportation, and communication. TCLEE is composed of committees for

carrying out the Council's business and to address the lifeline

categories. TCLEE committees are:

1. Executive Committee

2. Investigation Committee

3. Program and Publication Committee

4. Electric Power and Communications Committee

5. Gas and Liquid Fuel Committee

6. Seismic Risk Committee

7. Transportation Committee

8. Water and Sewage Committee.

Ansel Schiff gave a presentation on the earthquake-resistant

design of electrical power facilities. Schiff pointed out that

while earthquake risks vary geographically, as do the accompanying costs of providing earthquake resistance, in all locales

there are simple, economical precautions that can be taken. For

example, providing inexpensive restraints on small items and

storage units that may fall or tip over as a result of ground

motion.

Schiff suggested that power facility damage resulting from

an earthquake would be more severe in low risk areas because of

the possible "laissez faire" attitude toward seismic design in

those areas. On the other hand, a state such as California

should suffer less severe damage to its power facilities because

12
of the statewide emphasis on seismic design. Consequently, the

possible severity of damage to power facilities varies inversely

to the level of earthquake risk throughout the U.S.

Schiff also pointed out that the porcelain commonly used for

insulating functions at power facilities is frequently damaged as

a result of ground motion.

John Foss of Bell Laboratories reported that as a result of

the Bell system divestiture. Bell Laboratories are now part of

AT&T and therefore no longer establish seismic requirements for

the seven regional telephone companies. The regional companies

are responsible for implementing seismic hazard reduction measures. Foss pointed out that the telephone system is not as

susceptible to earthquake damage as other lifelines because

underground cables are flexible and can deform without being

damaged, and alternate paths around damaged parts of the network

are readily available.

Foss provided examples of specific actions taken to mitigate

seismic hazards. Computer equipment is secured to the slab below

raised floors, battery backup power sources are braced and

strengthened, site control and service restoration planning is

undertaken, and network management strategies are developed. The

telephone companies develop their earthquake survivability procedure according to the risks associated with one of the four

seismic zones as shown in figure 1.

Teoman Ariman of the University of Tulsa gave an overview of

the ASME Task Group on Lifelines and Earthquake Engineering. The

Task Group is guided by an ASME Advisory Committee, and it cooperates with Japanese lifeline engineering researchers through an

active program of translating and disseminating Japanese research

reports. Ariman showed the locations of pipeline failures that

have occurred along a portion of the San Andreas fault, and he

presented a series of design strategies for pipelines that cross

faults

.

Irvin Oppenheim of Carnegie-Mellon University discussed the

conduct of seismic risk analysis for lifelines. He pointed out

that in order to develop a data base reflecting the consequences

of an earthquake, it is necessary to determine what is important

to measure and how it is to be measured.

In order to determine risk, Oppenheim said that there must

be the capacity to make a statement such as: "For lifeline 'x'

the annual probability of suffering 'y* is equal to 'z'." He

suggested that measures of damage might be expressed in terms of

connectivity, maximum flow, serviceability, or economic loss.

Special issues that should be considered in a risk analysis

of a lifeline are:

13
1. Regional dependencies.

2. Possible bottlenecks and their locations.

3. Repair period length.

4. System redundancy.

5. Capability for consequence mitigation by management.

James Cooper, at the time with the Federal Highway Administration, discussed the survivability of ground transportation

facilities. Cooper pointed out that many current code provisions

for roads and bridges resulted from the effects of earthquakes

that have occurred between 1906 (San Francisco) and 1933 (Long

Beach) . Roads and bridges can be designed to withstand earthquakes either by intuition or by using empirical data. Mr.

Cooper proceeded to show examples of road and bridge failures.

According to Cooper, the uncertainties associated with

earthquake-resistant design are the nature of potential ground

motion; the structural response to the ground motion; and the

level of risk that is undesirable. The extent of upgrading the

seismic resistance capabilities of existing roads and bridges is

based on the risk to the structures, their importance within a

larger road system, and their current seismic resistance capacities . Following the conclusion of the workshop, the ICSSC Lifeline

Subcommittee convened for a meeting. The committee decided that

in view of limited design guidelines available in the lifelines

area that the subcommittee should divide into specific task

groups or areas to study available documents. After. such study,

the committee could then proceed to recommend interim guidelines

for use in design of lifelines. As part of this effort, the

Chairman called attention of the subcommittee to a workshop on

"Disaster Prevention for Lifeline Systems" to be held in

McLean, VA on May 14, 1984. This workshop will be hosted as part

of the US-Japan Panel on Wind and Seismic Effects Task Committee

on the subject of lifelines. It will include a program similar

to the one of the just concluded workshop but will include

presentation of Japanese research and practices. Members were

encouraged to attend as part of their subcommittee activities.

Attention was also called to a scheduled workshop on "Research

Needs and Priorities in Lifeline/Earthquake Engineering" that will

be held May 29-31, 1984 in Asilomar, CA.

14
WORKSHOP ON SEISMIC ZONING - MARCH 21, 1984

Participants

W.W. Hays (Moderator) USGS

E.V. Leyendecker (Recorder) NBS

G. Turner (Recorder) NBS

T. Algermissen USGS

E. Ailing USDA

E. Bell USDA

B. Bender USGS

C. Bufe USGS

B.C. Chan USDA

M.S. Chawla GSA

R. M. Chung NBS

J. Dodd BUREC

B. R. Ellingwood NBS

P.R. Fisher COE

P. Gori USGS

J.G. Hansen . DOL

J.R. Hill DOE

S. Hobbs VA

G. S. Hsiung GSA

R. Jackson..... NRC

J. Kimball NRC

H . Kravitz DOL

E.L. Krinitzsky COE, WES

S. C. Liu NSF

U. Morelli FEMA

A. J. Murphy. . NRC

I

.

V. Paavola OCE

P.V. Patterson USDA

D. Perkins USGS

L. Reiter NRC

W.D. Rust, Jr GSA

R. Schneider Dept, of Ed.

W. Sealy TVA

C. Spyropoulos HUD

K. T. Thirumalai NSF

The moderator, Walter Hays, of the U.S. Geological Survey

called the meeting to order and introduced Ted Algermissen of the

U.S. Geological Survey. Algermissen provided background for the

construction of probabilistic ground shaking hazard maps.

Following his presentation, the workshop focused on a panel

discussion with participants from the Federal agencies.

Algermissen noted the 1982 release of the USGS Open File

Report 82-1033 entitled "Probabilistic Estimates of Maximum Acceleration and Velocity in Rock in the Contiguous United States

[1]." This report contains a series of six maps, three for

acceleration and three for velocity. Each series of three maps

15
provide information for 10, 50, and 250 year exposure times.

These maps are included as figures 4 through 9 of this report.

(The following material is paraphrased from the USGS Open File

Report and Algermissen ' s presentation. The interested reviewer

is recommended this report for an in-depth treatment of seismic

zone maps.)

The new maps provided by Algermissen and Perkins, et al. in

1982 differ significantly from an 1976 probabilistic bedrock

acceleration map by Algermissen and Perkins [21 because of an

increase in detail on the geological basis for seismic source

zones. The 1976 probabilistic acceleration map was the basis for

one of the ATC maps referred to in the Implementation Workshop.

The new maps incorporate more seismotectonic information than was

available for the earlier maps. The increase in information

means that the ground shaking hazard is approaching an optimum

level of precision beyond which it is difficult to go without a major earthquake or new infusion of knowledge.

Earthquakes are modeled in the source zones as fault ruptures, combinations of fault ruptures, and point sources. The

particular model selected depends on whether or not the shock is

large or small. The effect of variation of parameters such as

point source versus fault zone and length of fault rupture was

examined in the report. The report also considered different

fault modeling techniques, various attenuation factors, variability in fault rupture length-magnitude relationship, and variability in attenuation functions. Soil effects are not incorporated in the maps. Algermissen also pointed out differences

between the new maps and the earlier Algermissen and Perkins maps

which served as the basis for the ATC report and subsequently the

ANSI A58. 1-1982 Standard. The new maps are considered an improvement in the application of probabilistic ground motion to

earthquake-resistant design for two principal reasons: 1) the

development of both acceleration and velocity maps makes possible

the estimation of bedrock response spectra at a site and comparison of spectra at any number of sites; 2) the change in earthquake hazard with exposure time can be estimated at any site

because of the three available exposure times — namely, 10, 50,

and 250 years. These exposure times can be correlated with the

useful lifetime of a structure or facility (for example, an

ordinary building has a useful life of about 50 years) . Some

specific problems still remain with certain geographical regions

of the U.S. These include central Utah, the Puget Sound, and

most of the eastern U.S.

Following Algermissen ' s presentation, a number of Federal

agency representatives were asked to identify some of their

agency concerns and needs; technical issues associated with the

construction of probabilistic ground shaking hazard maps and

16
responsibilities of the agencies for earthquake-resistant design

and construction. Discussion of various issues was interspersed

with the presentations.

Robert Jackson of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC)

indicated that he would like the earthquake hazard defined in a more stable sense; that is, he would like to see models defined

that could be improved with new knowledge. NRC is trying to

convert to a probabilistic rather than a deterministic approach.

They are going away from the seismic zone map and are trying to

estimate hazards at a specific site. In this regard, the various

source zones and other relationships such as attenuation are a big problem in the East.

Paul Fisher of the Corps of Engineers indicated that zone

maps are used to initiate studies for civil works. These may

result in site-specific studies. If there are major zone

changes, there will be many seismic hazard studies required. In

regard to the USGS maps, the Corps will probably follow them if

industry endorses the maps.

Jerry Dodd of the Bureau of Reclamation described the

Bureau's approach for dams, distribution systems (such as canals,

etc.), and buildings. The Bureau is interested in the new USGS

maps and may incorporate them in their decision-making process

about site-specific activities. At this time, dams require a site-specific study, their distribution systems are usually at

the designer's discretion, and buildings are designed in terms of

the local code level.

Steve Hobbs, representing the Veterans Administration (VA)

,

indicated that the VA used national and local codes prior to the

1971 San Fernando earthquake. Following that earthquake, they

initiated some site-specific studies and used a panel of experts

to evaluate the results for each site. They believe the sitespecific evaluation study is best for their purposes.

Bruce Ellingwood described the National Bureau of Standards'

(NBS) effort as the secretariat of the American National Standards Institute committee that prepared ANSI A58. 1-1982 "Building

Code Requirements for Minimum Design Loads in Buildings and Other

Structures." The Standard supports a probabilistic approach to

design. The seismic zone map in that report (figure 1) is based

on the results of the Applied Technology Council study which in

turn were based on the 1976 Algermissen and Perkins report discussed earlier.

Charles Scheffey of the Department of Transportation indicated that the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials ( AASHTO) has endorsed a new set of criteria

for bridges. The criteria was the result of an FHWA-sponsored

effort with the Applied Technology Council. The AASHTO group

17
endorsed the approach but did not accept the map presented in the

recommendations. Instead, they used a UBC zone map approach.

Ugo Morelli of the Federal Emergency Management Agency defined FEMA activities under the National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program (NEHRP) . He described the NEHRP efforts as a four agency activity (FEMA, USGS, NSF, and NBS) . He described a trial design process that is currently underway for new buildings

using, as a base, the Applied Technology Council requirements

that have been discussed in several of the workshops. The objective of this effort is the preparation of a set of recommended

provisions for new buildings issued as part of the NEHRP. FEMA

usually uses USGS seismic maps in their earthquake preparedness

activities and may use USGS-developed site-specific maps in providing aid to state and local officials after a major earthquake.

Ellis Krinitzsky from the Corps of Engineers voiced some

opinions. He pointed out a number of potential problems such as

those with expert opinions on seismicity. He felt that you could

get any opinion you wanted by selecting a particular expert. He

also voiced the opinion that extrapolation from historical data

representing a short time (e.g., 100-200 years) might lead to

some severe problems for long return periods. Krinitzsky solicited some discussion between him and USGS on maps.

E. V. Leyendecker of the National Bureau of Standards (NBS)

offered his opinion that the variability in maps raises major

questions. He felt seismic design procedures were easy once risk

had been established. Variability in maps raises questions about

the certainty in describing the risk.

The workshop closed with the note that there was considerable need for improvement on seismic risk on the national level

and that there was need for an information clearinghouse to

disseminate available information such as the type discussed in

the workshop.

18
WORKSHOP ON EVALUATION OF EXISTING BUILDINGS - DECEMBER 6, 1984

Participants

E.V. Leyendecker (Moderator) NBS

S.G. Fattal (Recorder) NBS

M.S. Chawla GSA/PBS

A.J. Eggenberger NSF

J.G. Hansen DOL

J. Hill DOE

G. Matsumura Army

R. P, McRobbie Air Force

U. Morelli FEMA

C. Rojahn ATC

J.B. Scalzi NSF

J. Smith BSSC

S. T. WU NBS

WORKSHOP HIGHLIGHTS

The workshop was sponsored by the ICSSC Subcommittee on

Standards for New and Existing Buildings (Subcommittee 1) and

moderated by its chairman, E.V. Leyendecker.

Presentations of selected research activities by the private

sector followed by an overview of selected agency activities.

The workshop began with opening remarks by Dr. Leyendecker on the

National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program. Diverse codes and

standards cited, such as used by various Federal agencies, local

jurisdictions, model codes, and consensus standards, served to

highlight the need to work towards a unified approach to seismic

design provisions. (The March 19 workshop cites much of this

information.) With regard to existing buildings, the need to

identify and solve some of the critical problems was cited. For

example, it was noted that not much is known about the effectiveness of the widely used epoxy repair technique in the event of

fire. The opening remarks were concluded with a presentation of

damage due to several earthquakes and what might be anticipated.

James R. Smith, Executive Director of the Building Seismic

Safety Council (BSSC) , discussed the status of a project for

identifying actions needed to abate the seismic hazards posed by

existing non-Federal buildings. This is a joint venture between

ATC, BSSC, and EERI . The plan is to develop issue papers in

various areas related to hazardous existing buildings (eight such

areas were defined) , discuss these papers at a workshop and

present the workshop proceedings and a plan of action to FEMA,

the project sponsor. This will be a 12-month effort, with the

plan and final report scheduled to come out in October 1985. The

issue papers will be available two weeks before the workshop

19
which is scheduled in the latter part of March 1985. U. Morelli

sees a key role for NBS in this effort to participate in the

liaison group and to bridge Federal and private sector standards.

Chris Rojahn, Executive Director of the Applied Technology

Council, spoke about the ATC 14 project on methodology for evaluation of the seismic strength of existing buildings. This three

and one-half year, NSF-sponsored effort has been underway for two

years and aims at developing a manual that will be applicable

nationwide (Federal and private) . The project engineering panel

will consist of James Noland, Mete Sozen, government representatives and practitioners. Comments by Dr. Scalzi of NSF dwelt on

selecting a well-balanced panel with regard to regional representation, academia, practitioners, and government agencies. The

guidelines focus on some ten building types, with the methodology

based on reformatted existing knowledge, plus some new ideas. A

three-phase approach will be focused on preliminary screening,

rapid evaluation, possibly involving some materials tests, and an

in-depth evaluation. Both structural and non-structural aspects

will be considered. Completion is targeted for June 1986. James

Hill of DOE drew attention to an existing publication [91 which

provides overviews from the plant manager’s point of view.

Scalzi presented an overview of NSF activities. In addition

to the ATC project noted above, FY 84 funded research projects

encompass the following areas:

1. Effect of fire on epoxy repair.

2. Strengthening existing masonry buildings by drilling,

inserting rebars, and injecting them with epoxy.

3. Study of concrete block infilled walls to prevent

complete collapse.

4. How to combine new and old concrete in existing

structures

.

5. Effect of heat-strengthening of deformed steel members.

6. Developing hysteretic properties of wind-type connections to assess seismic behavior.

7. Research on reinforced concrete bridge girders.

8. UJNR testing of steel and concrete buildings to improve

modeling for seismic behavior.

9. Seismic behavior of wood buldings.

10. Develop basic properties of unit clay masonry and

mortars through tests.

20
11. Nondestructive evaluation of existing buildings.

12. Cyclic response of anchor bolts.

13. Seismic response of composite masonry (brick-groutblock system).

14. Effect of shotcrete on masonry walls.

15. Seismic response of masonry piers.

16. Strength of masonry connections.

A. J. Eggenberger of NSF spoke about the "Base Isolation"

approach to earthquake design and NSF interest in exploring this

relatively new design philosophy. NSF will identify research

needs in this subject within the next six months and come out

with a timetable. Another area of interest to NSF identified was

the behavior of nonstructural elements, such as ceiling systems,

lighting systems, precast panels, cladding and glass. An articulated plan is envisaged within the next six to nine months.

The remainder of the session was dedicated to selected

Federal agency activities on existing buldings, including current

agency programs, future plans, problem areas, and agency needs.

Richard McConnell discussed the criteria used by the Veterans Administration (VA) in evaluating its buildings. The VA

defines four priorities for strengthening buildings. For category 1 (major risk) buildings, VA requires that the facility

attributes (good or bad) be identified. VA needs require that

provisions be site-specific so that they may be used on a caseby-case basis.

James Hill described the DOE program. The Department has an

upgrading program at Berkeley, including $20 million to upgrade

buildings damaged in the 1980 California earthquake. DOE is

consistent with national codes and standards. A report titled

"Site Specific Studies" will be issued as UCRL 53582.

George Matsumura discussed the Army's program in evaluating

their structures. From among a total of 3,600 buildings, 17 were

selected for evaluation by means of the Navy's manual which is

compatible with DOD. Of these, seven buildings were identified

as needing detailed structural analysis. Three buildings will be

subjected to strengthening methods. The Army does have basic

design guidelines for base acceleration (50 percent exceedance in

50 years and 10 percent in 100 years - inelastic mode). Their

21
manual will be published in one year but a draft will be available in 3-4 months. CERL is doing the detailed study of the

three buildings to develop strengthening methods and corresponding costs.

Information on evaluation and strengthening of existing

buildings is limited. There are good case studies of techniques

used but the information is not broadly applicable. This is due

in part to the variability in construction materials, construction techniques, and general practices that have naturally occurred through the years. Evaluations are being conducted and

strengthening efforts are being made out of necessity but they

are being done based on limited information. The research effort

in the area has been fragmented thus far and there is general

agreement on the need to define the problems and develop a coherent research plan. Both FEMA and NSF are giving increasing

priority to work in this area.

22
CLOSURE

The workshops sponsored by the ICSSC were intended to provide a forum for presenting and discussing recent developments on

various earthquake hazards mitigation topics and for presenting

and discussing agency practices and concerns.

Most agency representatives present agreed that common

Federal seismic provisions are desirable provided they allow

flexibility for specific agency needs. There was general agreement that uniformity would probably not occur without a specific

requirement for it, such as an executive order.

The lifelines workshop concluded that design guidelines for

use in design and construction of the wide variety of lifeline

facilities are limited. Existing documents should be studied for

determining what existing guidelines can be used on an interim

basis. The seismic zoning workshop participants concluded that

there is a lot of recent information available for use in studying updating of risk maps. This information should be used to

update the maps and allow development of some recommended maps.

There is a need for people working in the field of risk mapping

to have frequent exchanges of informtion.

The workshop on existing buildings concluded that the problem of such structures is extensive and the available data for

evaluation and approaches to strengthening are limited. At the

same time, work is proceeding in both of these areas in spite of

the limited knowledge because of the need to take actions.

23
REFERENCES

1. Algermissen, S.T., et al., "Probabilistic Estimates of

Maximum Acceleration and Velocity in Rock in the Contiguous

United States," Open File Report 82-1033, U.S. Geological

Survey, Denver, CO, 1982.

2. Algermissen, S.T. and Perkins, D.M., "A Probabilistic

Estimate of Maximum Acceleration in Rock in the Contiguous

United States," Open File Report 76-416, U.S. Geological

Survey, Denver, CO, 1976.

3. "Amendments to ATC 3-06 Tentative Provisions for the

Development of Seismic Regulations for Buildilngs for Use in

Trial Designs," NBSIR 82-2626, National Bureau of Standards,

Washington, DC, 1982.

4. Applied Technology Council, "Tentative Provisions for the

Development of Seismic Regulations for Buildings," SP-510,

National Bureau of Standards, Washington, DC, 1978.

5. "BSSC Program on Improved Seismic Safety Provisions,

3 Volumes," Building Seismic Safety Council, Washington, DC,

1984.

6. "Building Code Requirements for Minimum Design Loads in

Buildings and Other Structures," American National Standards

Institute Inc., New York, New York, 1972.

7. "Building Code Requirements for Reinforced Concrete (ACI

318-83)," American Concrete Institute, Detroit, MI, 1977.

8. "Design Guidelines, Earthquake Resistance of Buildings,"

PBS (PCD) :DG.l , Volume 1, General Services Administration,

Public Building Service, Washington, DC, March 1978.

9. Eagling, Donald G., "Seismic Safety Guide," OBL-9143,

Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory, University of California,

Berkeley, California, September, 1983.

10. Forell, N.F., "Developments in Earthquake Design Codes," San

Francisco, California, 1981.

11. Harris, J.R., Leyendecker, E.V., et al., "Draft Seismic

Standard for Federal Buildings," NBSIR 81-2195, National

Bureau of Standards, Washington, DC, 1981.

12. "Lateral Force Design Requirements for VA Hospitals,"

Veterans Administration, Washington, DC, 1974.

24
13.

"Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and Other Structures,"

American National Standards Institute Inc., New York, New

York, 1982.

14. "Plan for a Trial Design Program to Assist Amended ATC 3-06

Tentative Provisions for the Development of Seismic

Regulations for Buildings," NBSIR 82-2589, National Bureau

of Standards, Washington, DC, 1982.

15. "Recommended Lateral Force Requirements and Commentary,"

Structural Engineers Association of California, San

Francisco, California, revised 1975.

16.

"Seismic Design for Buildings," Department of the Army,

Navy, and the Air Force, TM 5-809-10, NAV FAC P-355,

AFM 88 - 3, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, DC,

1982.

17. "Uniform Building Code," International Conference of

Building Officials, Inc., Whittier, California, 1973.

18. "Uniform Building Code," International Conference of

Building Officials, Inc., Whittier, California, 1982.

25
Table 1. Acronyms Used in this Report

American Association of State Highway and Transportation

Officials ( AASHTO)

American Concrete Institute (ACI)

American National Standards Institute (ANSI)

American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE)

American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME)

Applied Technology Council (ATC)

Building Seismic Safety Council (BSSC)

Bureau of Reclamation (BUREC)

Construction Engineering Research Laboratory (CERL)

Corps of Engineers (COE)

Department of Agriculture (DOA)

Department of Defense (DOD)

Department of Energy (DOE)

Department of Labor (DOL)

Department of Transportation (DOT)

Earthquake Engineering Research Institute (EERI)

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)

Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA)

General Services Administration/Public Building Service (GSA/PBS)

Housing and Urban Development (HUD)

Interagency Committee on Seismic Safety in Construction (ICSSC)

National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA)

National Bureau of Standards (NBS)

National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program (NEHRP)

26
National Science Foundation (NSF)

Naval Facilities Engineering Command (NAVFAC)

Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC)

Office, Chief of Engineers/Waterways Experiment Station (OCE/WES)

Structural Engineers Association of California (SEAOC)

Technical Council on Lifeline Earthquake Engineering ( TCLEE)

Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA)

Uniform Building Code (UBC)

U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA)

U.S. Geological Survey (USGS)

U.S. /Japan Panel on Natural Resources (UJNR)

Veterans Administration (VA)

27
Table 2. Approximate Relation of ANSI Zones with

ATC Map Areas (ANSI A58.1)

ATC Map Areas

7

5, 6

3, 4

2

1

ANSI Map Zones

4

3

2

1

0

Table 3. Z Coefficients

Design Criteria/Seismic Zone 0 1 2 3 4

SEAOC Z-Factor* - - - - 1

ANSI Z-Factor 1/8 3/16 3/8 3/4 1

UBC Z-Factor 0 3/16 3/8 3/4 1

Tri-Service Z-Factor 0 3/16 3/8 3/4 1

* SEAOC refers only to a Z-factor of 1 for the highest

seismic risk area.

28
Table 4. Current Agency Seismic Provisions

Does the agency reference any existing code or standard in

lieu of developing agency provisions? Y/N

If YES, which one?

Code/Standard Year

Uniform Building Code

Basic Building Code

Standard Bulding Code

ANSI A58.1

Local/State Code

Other

Remarks

:

Does the agency reference the document in item 2 without

modifications? Y/N

If NO, how are the modifications obtained and how are they

maintained and kept up to date?

Does the agency develop its own provisions? Y/N

If YES, how are they developed and how are they maintained?
Table 5. Agency Policy and/or Requirements

1. Are the seismic provisions used as the result of agency

policy, legislation, etc.?

2. What actions (policy change, legislation change, etc.) would

be necessary to change or modify current requirements.

30
31

Figure

1.

Seismic

risk

zone

map

used

by

ANSI

A58.

1-1982.
32

Figure

2.

ATC

map

areas

based

on

effective

peak

velocityrelated

acceleration.
33
>1

4J

C

CO -H 0 (0

O -H

+J rH

O rH

H5

M HU (D fT3 XI (OW'D >1 0 CO

4->

C OH 04.0

U

C no 3 x: <u o cO O (0 Eh 4J 4H u 0) N 4-> (0 co o 04 >1

•H •H 0 £ 1 c 4J • •H w X> o o D •rl X at G r—1

XI CO CM o 3 0 0 00 SH i—1 O CO X x: 4J Os 04 CO 1-4 (0 4J (0 rH 04 > 0 G

<u CO 04

H

04

C CO ** CD H U4 • CO X! o no

MU (0 rH •H Cl 0 O no (0 CO no 0 >1 no to <u M 4-J -p o • 0

rH o o ai •H 4^ 0 o

<L» 0 rH 1-4 CO > X > 04 c 0 u CO 0 0 X 4H 0 04 to x: i—1

(0

O CO 0 a»

CO

G >1

G .Q £ G 0) •H 1-4 o 3 o £ £ 3 LO •H 4-> £ •H •H 1-4 4-> Cl 4-> O

•H 4-> 4-> CD CD (0

G

X to CP l-i >1 1-4 cO 1-4 0 pH r—1

CD i—l E 0 V-l < 101 rH i—1 i—l

1—1 3 w

G (0 CD

H

O' 0 CO

H 3 O 3 o O .X no 4-> O

•H o 04

O c O cO >1 £ to X o o (0 0 o CD 1-4 04 - -X XI • x: no no CO o 4-> no

CO c G

© CD co o O 3 CO XI 1-4 1-4 1-4 4-1 •H

04 o 1-4 co no CO 1-1 (0 M c >i o CD CD XI 0 s O' •H X o >1-0 -P 04 0

i-i 3

tJi •H

fa

34
03

03 <0

to

u

4-1 03

03 C/3 TD

44

C CD D ON

'D

a; 44•HcD

uO

xz co

<u xz

4-> .x

n303a c

44

O -H 0 4C H m to *h

a/ >i a

X3 0) 44

4-1

O

03£ co •h a> X 3 O rH 4 (0

U IQ

CL. > a

03 03

03u

rO03>1

CO 0

1401

4Jc

03o

'm03a

14<0

0)>1I o

in

03

03

'V

03

4-1 44 —IOO 03 -<4 03 03 in 41 > a c 03

03

X 44

r-4 03

O

C 03 O £

03>

03 xz £3£

•H 44 44

to4l

03

X

0J£

03

Ul3

CP 03 03 COO •H U O. £ 03 X O

x: 'V

03C3

Qj

O

03 41 S CP

03C

03

xuo

l-l 'V

0) X3>i

X3

'D • O ~

*-4 03u

03

a 03>i c c

14 Tf

O 3 *h

44 Tj- 44

03 03 u >1 J-j rH 03 On r-4 i-4 C 03 03 3 O

4-3

O

O 03 03

-o

03 'V

03

03oX

0)

03 .a

4Joc

T3Co

a.-'

03

03

>1

03 xz

44

XU 44 no

03

O

O

U

U 43 *-H 03 'O 03

03 44

no

03 >i.Q

03a.

in

03

l-i 3

CP •H

lu

35
I M • o

ai >1

-P CN r-iw 3

«3 00 (L> a> 1—i

44 CTi 44 3 C

to

W i—1

t0 1—1 H

4-1 E <0 44 c HD w •H > C T3 o a; W • X CD ai N 44 o i—1 o CD O H3

•H •H 44 t0 1-1

X V4 a»

>-4 c •H 0<E-t a; cd O D W 44 a. O. o X ai CO X

<u 44 • o a> -V x t0 w <Ti <0 -14 c •H W CD

<L>

m ai J4 tO

X

Oi

C )4

w HD to •H to w O CL) at

X

44 ai

H •H >i > o O 'O >i E S-4 to c

<u

u <u <N

X

W 44 o CD Oi r- iH i—1 O in cn m c r—i o <L» <N —i c w o H > 04 < V4 CM •H

QJ

X 44 •—• 3 4-> i—1

0)

O 44 >i (0 >i

.x <D 1—1 M cd E C o o U4 r—i

a>

X

a

O E o to

—i X E •H •H U4 cni 3 CL) •H 44 44 H3 c 44 O X X <0 <L) -H U O <0 *H rau<ux> ro<an3 rC>-< g <D 5-1 c 4-> a> H 3 >iO Oi

Di(l) 01 ^aMO>i COO ill ^ Oil

H

•Hoftcomu-rtiii jnjX-HUO'O'HO O a>fC>-i>i<L>-H>i

43 ro r-i

O XI XI I tocc^oo (00 3 (0 0) O .X XI lt> Cl, O roaimnsocN a w c e x •» o >-t S a»*H s B n Oi Oi <0

VO

a)

S-l 3Jcn

•r-l

36
37
>i

40 4-1 c o •H •H G O -X rH

•iH in 0 •H I—1

CO 0 0 XI

(0 0 i—1

>1 04 0

44 44 PI 1—1 40 Pl c 0 0 0 4-4 O 0 o 4-) 'O 4-J O Pl 0 N CO G 0 0 04 >1

•rH 3 X E CO 1 Pi t3 Eh •H 0 4-1 O O 0 CO X 3 G in X 4-> 0 O rH 0

•H 4J • Pi 0 O 0

_X

G •H ^ 04 > PI

<0

D CO <N 04 0 C 0 00 0 0 Ol "rH a 0 4-) Ol X

x: 0 rH CO E-t

O ro

4-4 44 •H Ol 0 O CO - rO G PI • ro • 0 0

CO •H 0 rH

O r-s 0

r-4 0 0 •H CO 0 O 0 T3 >i P4 Pl > X > <L» 4-1 0 0 0 0 0 4-> o 0 O40G

rH

O in >1 0

(L» c CC 40 E O-i 4-i <D Pl "'41 O 3 X o CO 3 r- •H 44 E 0 CO 4-> "^1* 44 O

•H 0 -H 0 0 G X >1 E E pi >1 p 0 4-1 •rH H rH 0 rH E •H 44 0 01 rH 1—1 1—1 O cn c 0 0 *H

cnO 0 i

i •H 3 0 s c rH Pl <C rQ -P> O

•rH 0 3 G

O 0 >1 > CO O 0 0 o O -X O4 W -x X • 43 TJ 04 O CO O 44 rQ

coGX o 0 CO

OO 3 0 PI P4 Pl PI 44 rH 04 O 'O Pl 0 fO 0 Pl 0 Pi C 0 O 0 0 X 0 s <0 40 O >i40 x 04

000

P43

tn •H

Ua

38
oO J*

>1

4-1 c C IT) 03 *H

•H rH 04 rH

(0 CN) Oh - H t—i co i—i

X)

05 04 V-l >1 *44 03 VH 44 44 04 <D rH O X) 03 c 05 no 40 04 O 04 o -U C E-* 44 CO i-h >i N cn 3 03 04 Oh I H E 3 o

J-i T3 CO • •H rH 44 in O 04 04 X 03 C CN X 44 44 CN) o > 04 •H •H 00 l-l o 03 -X c CO ON Oh 04 U

03

D rH Oh-C 04 c

<u 44 r0 di'H

a. <u 03 4= • (0 o no

<44 44 CO rH •H • ON 04 o k-l 03 00 c td 00 CO 03 04 co •rH 04 44 O in 04 rH >1 04 •rH 03 04 U

04 no k-l 04 > X > <u O c 04 >i 03 04

<u 44 in 04

a X3 1—1 O CM CO CN 04

<u CO c r- c -O E Oh On •rH JH co o 3 X o E 3 —. -rH 44 E 04 u 44 CN) 44 o

•H 04 04 04 03 c

>1 E cn

u >i i-i 4-4 -H r-H H Gj

•i-t 4-4 f£, CP rH rH o — c 03 04 •rH cn o 04 •rH 3 O c rH 14 -X no 44 U

•H 04 o C

u 03 >i > CO o o a 04 o o u Oh X -C • x: no Oh no CO C4 44 no

COC

X 04 04 CO o O 3 04 X) U Vh u 44 •H

a

O

U “ no 03 U) 03 u c >i o 04 04 sz 04 s: ON 03 -O o >1.0 44 Oh

04

i_i 3

cn

39
NBS-I 14A (REV. 2-80

U.S. DEPT. OF COMM. BIBLIOGRAPHIC DATA1. PUBLICATION OR

REPORT NO.

2. Performing Organ. Report No. 3. Publication Date

SHEET (See instructions) NBSIR 85-3161 May 1985

4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE

Workshops Convened by the Interagency Committee on Seismic Safety in

Construction During 1984

5. AUTHOR(S)

Edgar V. Leyendecker, George E. Turner, and S. George Fattal

6. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION (If joint or other than NBS, see instructions) 7. Contract/Grant No. NATIONAL BUREAU OF STANDARDS

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 8. Type of Report & Period Covered

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20234

9. SPONSORING ORGANIZATION NAME AND COMPLETE ADDRESS (Street. City, State. ZIP)

Federal Emergency Management Agency

Washington, DC 20742

10. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES

1 Document describes a computer program; SF-185, FIPS Software Summary, is attached.

11. ABSTRACT (A 200-word or less factual summary of most significant information. If document includes a significant

bi bl iography or literature survey, mention it here) In an effort to inform Federal agencies about the most recent development

on various earthquake hazards mitigation topics, informal workshops were

convened by the Interagency Committee on Seismic Safety in Construction

in Washington, DC during 1984. This report presents summaries of the

workshop series which included the subjects of implementation of seismic

provisions for Federal agencies, lifelines, seismic risk maps, and

evaluation of existing buildings. The summaries provide an overview of

the major topics discussed. Where applicable, recommendations that

resulted are given.

12. KEY WORDS (Six to twelve entries; alphabetical order; capitalize only proper names; and separate key words by ^semifolon s) Buildings; building design; codes and standards; earthquake; existing

buildings; Federal workshops; lifelines; seismic zoning.

13. AVAILABILITY 14. NO. OF

PRINTED PAGES

xlx3 Uni imited

| | For Official Distribution. Do Not Release to NTIS 43

|

1 Order From Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C. 20402. 15. Price

X}£X] Order From National Technical Information Service (NTIS), Springfield, VA. 22161 $8.50

USCOMM-DC 6043-P80