Risk Management Series

Primer for Design 

Professionals 

Communicating with Owners and Managers of New 

Buildings on Earthquake Risk

January 2004

FEMA

FEMA 389

RISK MANAGEMENT SERIES

Primer for Design 

Professionals: 

Communicating with Owners 

and Managers of New 

Buildings on Earthquake 

Risk

PROVIDING PROTECTION TO PEOPLE AND BUILDINGS

FEMA 389 / January 2004

www.fema.gov

TABLE OF CONTENTS iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF FIGURES........................................................................ vii

LIST OF TABLES........................................................................... xi

1 INTRODUCTION............................................................... 1-1

1.1 Impetus for Updating the Prior Documents in the 

FEMA Seismic Considerations Series ........................... 1-3

1.2 Objectives and Scope of this Document ....................... 1-5

1.3 Document Contents and Organization ......................... 1-6

1.4 Document Formatting and Icons .................................. 1-8

2 SEISMIC RISK MANAGEMENT........................................... 2-1

2.1 Seismic Risk: An Overview ........................................ 2-1

2.2 Seismic Risk Management: A Holistic Approach for 

Reducing Earthquake Impacts ..................................... 2-4

2.3 Evaluating Seismic Risk Consequences as a Basis for 

Developing a Risk Management Plan .......................... 2-6

2.4 First Cost or Design Strategies .................................... 2-9

2.5 Operating Cost or Business Strategies ....................... 2-13

2.6 Event Response Strategies ........................................ 2-16

2.7 Choosing an Optimal Combination of Risk Reduction 

Strategies .............................................................. 2-18

2.8 Example Implementation of a Risk Management 

Program ................................................................ 2-21

2.9 Seismic Risk Management Advocacy ........................ 2-22

3 IDENTIFYING AND ASSESSING EARTHQUAKERELATED HAZARDS........................................................... 3-1

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

3.2 Earthquake Ground Shaking Hazard .......................... 3-1

3.3 Collateral Seismic Hazards ........................................ 3-8

3.4 Other Collateral Hazards ........................................ 3-10

3.5 Guidance for Assessing Earthquake-Related Hazards .. 3-16

3.6 References and Further Reading ............................... 3-21

4 PERFORMANCE-BASED ENGINEERING:

AN EMERGING CONCEPT IN SEISMIC DESIGN ................. 4-1

4.1 Seismic Design Provisions in Building Codes ................ 4-1

4.2 Expected Performance when Designing to Current 

Codes ..................................................................... 4-3

4.3 Current Specifications for Performance-Based 

Seismic Design ......................................................... 4-6

4.4 Impact of Performance-Based Strategies on 

Future Design Codes ............................................... 4-18

4.5 Guidance for Design Professionals ............................ 4-23

4.6 References and Further Reading ............................... 4-24

5 IMPROVING PERFORMANCE TO REDUCE 

SEISMIC RISK ................................................................... 5-1

5.1 Introduction .............................................................. 5-1
iv TABLE OF CONTENTS

5.2 Selection of Structural Materials and Systems ...............5-2

5.3 Selection of the Architectural Configuration ..................5-5

5.4 Consideration of Nonstructural Component 

Performance .............................................................5-6

5.5 Quantifying the Benefits of Improved Performance ......5-11

5.6 Costs of Improved Performance ................................5-19

5.7 Case Studies of Cost and Performance 

Considerations .......................................................5-23

5.8 Quality Control During the Construction Process .........5-30

5.9 Recommendations for Improving Seismic 

Performance ...........................................................5-31

6 DESIGN AND PERFORMANCE ISSUES RELATING

TO COMMERCIAL OFFICE BUILDINGS ................................6-1

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

6.2 Ownership, Financing, and Procurement ......................6-2

6.3 Performance of Office Buildings in Past Earthquakes .....6-2

6.4 Performance Expectations and Requirements ................6-5

6.5 Seismic Design Issues ................................................6-5

7 DESIGN AND PERFORMANCE ISSUES RELATING

TO RETAIL COMMERCIAL FACILITIES...................................7-1

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

7.2 Ownership, Financing, and Procurement ......................7-2

7.3 Performance of Commercial Retail Facilities in 

Past Earthquakes .......................................................7-3

7.4 Performance Expectations and Requirements ................7-4

7.5 Seismic Design Issues ................................................7-4

8 DESIGN AND PERFORMANCE ISSUES RELATING TO

LIGHT MANUFACTURING FACILITIES ..................................8-1

8.1 Introduction ..............................................................8-1

8.2 Ownership, Financing and Procurement .......................8-2

8.3 Performance of light Manufacturing Facilities in 

Past Earthquakes .......................................................8-3

8.4 Performance Expectations and Requirements ................8-4

8.5 Seismic Design Issues ................................................8-4

9 DESIGN AND PERFORMANCE ISSUES RELATING

TO HEALTHCARE FACILITIES...............................................9-1

9.1 Introduction ..............................................................9-1

9.2 Ownership, Financing, and Procurement ......................9-2

9.3 Performance of Healthcare Facilities in Past 

Earthquakes .............................................................9-3

9.4 Performance Expectations and Requirements ................9-5

9.5 Seismic Design Issues ................................................9-6

10 DESIGN AND PERFORMANCE ISSUES RELATING

TO LOCAL SCHOOLS (K-12).............................................10-1

10.1 Introduction ............................................................10-1

10.2 Ownership, Financing, and Procurement ....................10-2

10.3 Performance of Local Schools in Past Earthquakes .......10-2
TABLE OF CONTENTS v

10.4 Performance Expectations and Requirements .............. 10-3

10.5 Seismic Design Issues .............................................. 10-4

11 DESIGN AND PERFORMANCE ISSUES RELATING

TO HIGHER EDUCATION FACILITIES (UNIVERSITIES) .......... 11-1

11.1 Introduction ............................................................ 11-1

11.2 Ownership, Financing, and Procurement ................... 11-2

11.3 Performance of Higher Education Facilities 

(Universities) in Past Earthquakes .............................. 11-2

11.4 Performance Expectations and Requirements .............. 11-4

11.5 Seismic Design Issues .............................................. 11-5

12 RESPONSIBILITIES FOR SEISMIC CONSIDERATIONS

 WITHIN THE DESIGN TEAM ........................................... 12-1

12.1 Responsibilities of the Structural Engineer, Architect, 

and MEP Engineer .................................................. 12-1

12.2 Developing a Unified Approach Within the Design 

Team .................................................................... 12-1

12.3 Engineering Services for Added Value of Risk 

Management ......................................................... 12-2

12.4 Communicating Seismic Considerations Issues to 

the Building Owner ................................................. 12-2

12.5 Design and Construction Quality Assurance ............. 12-10

REFERENCES ......................................................................... 13-1

PROJECT PARTICIPANTS ......................................................... 14-1
vi TABLE OF CONTENTS
LIST OF FIGURES vii

LIST OF FIGURES

2-1 Seismic risk, expressed graphically as a function of 

likelihood of damage and consequences given the 

ccurrence of the damage. ................................................ 2-3

2-2 Illustration of risk of experiencing catastrophic earthquake 

losses. ........................................................................... 2-7

2-3 Illustration of reduction in risk of catastrophic earthquake 

losses. ........................................................................... 2-8

2-4 Flow chart for identifying, evaluating, and selecting riskreduction strategies to develop a risk management plan. ... 2-10

3-1 Six-story concrete-moment-frame medical building 

that was severely damaged by the magnitude-6.8 

Northridge, California, earthquake of January 17, 1994 .... 3-2

3-2 Eight-story reinforced-concrete-frame office building in 

Kobe, Japan that partially collapsed during the 

magnitude-7.8 earthquake of January 17, 1995. ............... 3-2

3-3 Older five-story reinforced concrete frame building in 

Managua, Nicaragua, that had inadequate seismic 

resistance and collapsed during the magnitude-6.2 

earthquake of December 23, 1972................................... 3-3

3-4 Preseismic-code ten-story reinforced-concrete-frame 

building in Bucharest, Romania, that partially collapsed 

during the 1977 magnitude-7.2 earthquake approximately 

65 miles north of Bucharest.............................................. 3-3

3-5 Typical acceleration time history of strong ground shaking... 3-4

3-6 Probabilistic seismic hazard maps showing ground 

shaking hazard zones in the contiguous United States......... 3-5

3-7 Hazard curves for selected U.S. cities................................ 3-6

3-8 Example of surface fault rupture; 1971 San Fernando, 

California, earthquake (a thrust fault earthquake)................ 3-9

3-9 Aerial view of leaning apartment houses resulting from 

soil liquefaction and the behavior of liquefiable soil 

foundations, Niigata, Japan, earthquake of 

June 16, 1964 ............................................................. 3-10

3-10 Government Hill School, Anchorage, destroyed by 

landslide during the magnitude-8.4 Alaska earthquake 

of 1964....................................................................... 3-11

3-11 Overturned lighthouse at Aonae, Okushiri, from the 

tsunami following the 1993 Hokkaido-Nansei-Oki 

earthquake................................................................... 3-11

3-12 Photo showing damage caused by the pounding of a 

10-story steel-frame building (with masonry infill walls) 

against a seven-story building. Most of the cracking 

damage to the piers of the taller building was at the roof 

line of the shorter building ............................................. 3-13

3-13 Photo showing fallen parapets from an earthquakedamaged unreinforced masonry building......................... 3-15
viii LIST OF FIGURES

3-14 Photo showing the burning of the Tokyo Police Station 

following the magnitude-8.3 Tokyo/Kanto earthquake 

of 1923....................................................................... 3-16

3-15 Site evaluation check list. ............................................... 3-18

4-1 Photo of lights set into a fixed ceiling system that shook 

loose during an earthquake and are hanging from their 

conduits. ........................................................................ 4-5

4-2 Photo of pipe flange failure caused by earthquake lateral 

forces ............................................................................ 4-6

4-3 Graphic illustration of Operational, Immediate Occupancy, 

Life-Safety, and Collapse Prevention Performance Levels..... 4-11

4-4 Expected building performance....................................... 4-22

5-1 Example design solutions for addressing soft story 

condition........................................................................ 5-7

5-2 Elevation views of building with short columns between 

first and second floors.................................................... 5-10

5-3 Nonsymmetric loading of book stacks in library building.... 5-11

5-4 Relationship between cost and performance for 

hypothetical example..................................................... 5-21

5-5 Site of facilities for computer graphics equipment maker 

in Salt Lake City, Utah. .................................................. 5-23

5-7 Sample new school building design in Salt Lake City K-12 

School District............................................................... 5-25

5-6 Sample existing school building in Salt Lake City K-12 

School District............................................................... 5-25

5-8 Site hazard curve for Salt Lake City K-12 School District 

seismic risk study........................................................... 5-26

5-9 New bioengineering laboratory building designed for 

UC Berkeley campus...................................................... 5-29

5-10 Comparison of future losses for two different structural 

system options for new UC Berkeley laboratory building. ... 5-30

5-11 Comparison of benefit to cost of using a buckling 

retrained braced frame, instead of a conventional 

concentric braced frame, for new UC Berkeley laboratory 

building. Cost equals cost differential............................... 5-31

6-1 Typical earthquake damage to contents and nonstructural 

components in a modern office building............................. 6-3

6-2 Exterior view of medical office building severely damaged 

by the 1994 Northridge earthquake.................................. 6-4

6-3 Partially collapsed end-wall in 5-story office building 

caused by severe earthquake ground shaking..................... 6-4

7-1 Severe damage to a department store severely shaken by 

the 1994 Northridge earthquake. Shear failure between 

the waffle slabs and columns caused the collapse of 

several floors .................................................................. 7-3

8-1 Roof and wall collapse of tilt-up building during the 1994

Northridge earthquake .................................................... 8-3

9-1 Exterior view of Holy Cross Medical Center, which was 

evacuated after the 1994 Northridge earthquake due to 

damage to the HVAC system ............................................ 9-4
LIST OF FIGURES ix

9-2 Aerial view of Olive View Hospital, which sustained no 

structural damage during the 1994 Northridge earthquake, 

but was closed for a short while after the earthquake 

because of water leakage from broken sprinklers and 

waterlines. ..................................................................... 9-4

9-3 Sketch showing typical interstitial space for nonstructural 

components and systems in new hospitals.......................... 9-7

10-1 Nonstructural damage at Northridge Junior High where 

lights fell onto desks during the 1994 Northridge 

earthquake................................................................... 10-3

11-1 Fractured 4-inch-thick steel base plate, university building,

Northridge, 1994......................................................... 11-3

12-1 Checklist for seismic expectations ................................... 12-6

12-2 Checklist for Architect/Engineer Interaction...................... 12-8

12-3 Checklist for defining project responsibilities .................... 12-9

12-4 Example of completed checklist shown in Figure 12-3 ..... 12-11

12-5 Checklist for responsibility of nonstructural component 

design....................................................................... 12-12
x LIST OF FIGURES
LIST OF TABLES xi

LIST OF TABLES

4-1 Performance Objectives (Adapted from FEMA 356 

(ASCE, 2000)) ............................................................... 4-9

4-2 Target Building Performance Levels and Ranges 

(ASCE, 2000) .............................................................. 4-13

4-3 Structural Performance Levels and Damage—Horizontal 

Elements (From FEMA 356)............................................ 4-14

4-4 Structural Performance Levels and Damage1—Vertical 

Elements (from FEMA 356) ............................................ 4-15

4-5 Nonstructural Performance Levels and Damage—

Architectural Components (from FEMA 356) .................... 4-19

4-6 Nonstructural Performance Levels and Damage—

Mechanical, Electrical, and Plumbing Systems/

Components (from FEMA 356)....................................... 4-20

4-7 Nonstructural Performance Levels and Damage—

Contents (from FEMA 356) ............................................ 4-21

5-1 Seismic Performance of Structural Systems (adapted 

from Elsesser, 1992) ....................................................... 5-3

5-2 Structural Systems for Site Conditions and Occupancy 

Types (from Elsesser, 1992) ............................................. 5-4

5-3 Vertical Irregularities, Resulting Failure Patterns, and 

Performance Implications................................................. 5-8

5-4 Plan Irregularities, Resulting Failure Patterns, and 

Performance Implications................................................. 5-9

5-5 Summary of Benefits and Costs for Hypothetical 

Manufacturing Facility Example...................................... 5-22

5-6 Comparison of Costs for Design to SBCCI and IBC 

Requirements ............................................................... 5-28
xii LIST OF TABLES
INTRODUCTION 1-1

INTRODUCTION 1

Seismic risk management tools, including new seismic engineering 

technology and data, are now available to assist with evaluating, predicting, and controlling financial and personal-injury losses from future 

damaging earthquakes. These tools have evolved as a result of scientific 

and engineering breakthroughs, including new earth-science knowledge about the occurrence and severity of earthquake shaking, and new 

engineering techniques for designing building systems and components to withstand the effects of earthquakes. As a result, design and 

construction professionals can now design and construct new buildings 

with more predictable seismic performance than ever before.

Seismic risks can be managed effectively in a number of ways, including 

the design and construction of better performing buildings as well as 

the employment of strategies that can result in risk reduction over the 

life of the building. Risk reduction techniques include the 

use of new technologies, such as seismic isolation and 

energy dissipation devices for both structural and nonstructural systems; site selection to avoid hazards such as 

ground motion amplification, landslide, and liquefaction; 

and the use of performance-based design concepts, which 

enable the engineer to better estimate building capacity 

and seismic loading demand and to design buildings for 

enhanced performance (beyond that typically provided by 

current seismic codes). The implementation of risk reduction strategies by building owners and managers is critically 

important, not only for reducing the likelihood of life loss and injury, 

but also for reducing the potential for losses associated with earthquake 

damage repair and business interruption.

The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) has commissioned and funded the development of this document to facilitate the 

process of educating building owners and managers about seismic risk 

management tools that can be effectively and economically employed 

by them during the building development phase – from site selection 

through design and construction – as well as the operational phase.

This document also recognizes that seismic design professionals (architects and engineers) throughout the United States have varying levels of 

technical knowledge and experience pertaining to the seismic design of 

buildings. In areas of moderate and high seismicity, the knowledge and 

experience is substantially greater than in areas of low seismicity. In 

The implementation of risk 

reduction strategies by building 

owners and managers is critically 

important, not only for reducing 

the likelihood of life loss and 

injury, but also for reducing the 

potential for losses associated with 

earthquake damage repair and 

business interruption.
1-2 INTRODUCTION

many cases, design professionals rely extensively, if not exclusively, on 

local building seismic codes for specifications and instruction for incorporating seismic resistance in buildings that they design. In other cases, 

design professionals supplement their design experience and knowledge by using technical resource documents on seismic-design related 

issues prepared by professional structural engineering organizations 

and institutions,1 in many cases with funding from state and federal 

agencies (e.g., FEMA). As a result, many design professionals are likely 

to have substantial knowledge about concepts and approaches for 

reducing seismic risk in new buildings, the special focus of this document.

Regardless of their level of knowledge and experience in seismic design, 

seismic design professionals are likely to have little knowledge regarding non-engineering-related strategies and options that could be 

employed by building owners and managers to reduce their 

seismic risk. This document has therefore also been written to 

educate the seismic design professional on these non-engineering-related risk management approaches, including risk transfer through insurance, risk reduction through earthquake 

response planning, and risk reduction through other non-engineering-related means.

While the methods described are general in nature and apply to most 

building uses, the document specifically addresses six occupancy types:

❍ commercial office facilities,

❍ retail commercial facilities,

❍ light manufacturing facilities,

❍ healthcare facilities,

❍ local schools (kindergarten through grade 12), and 

❍ higher education (university) facilities.

The intended audience for this document consists of those design professionals (architects and engineers) who typically work with building 

owners and managers in developing new building projects. The document is intended to be used in conjunction with a set of six companion 

FEMA-funded brochures for building owners and managers, written to 

encourage the use of seismic risk management tools and strategies in 

the design and construction of new buildings. A brochure has been pre1. Example organizations and institutions include: the American Society of Civil Engineers, the 

Applied Technology Council, the Building Seismic Safety Council, and the Structural Engineers 

Association of California.

This document has also been 

written to educate the seismic 

design professional on nonengineering-related risk 

management approaches.
INTRODUCTION 1-3

pared for each of the six facility types identified above, and each is limited in scope and content so that it can be quickly read and easily 

understood by building owners and managers. The brochures identify a 

number of issues, many of them posed in the form of questions, that 

relate to seismic risk and the benefits that seismic risk management, 

including performance-based design, can provide to building owners 

and managers. Each brochure is amply illustrated with photographs, 

charts, and tables that demonstrate important concepts in seismic risk 

management and seismic design and construction. 

This document and set of brochures were preceded approximately fifteen years ago with a series of FEMA documents, known as the Seismic 

Considerations Series, which were written for a broad range of professionals and stakeholders interested in and concerned about building seismic performance issues.

1.1 IMPETUS FOR UPDATING THE PRIOR 

DOCUMENTS IN THE FEMA SEISMIC 

CONSIDERATIONS SERIES

The initial publications in the FEMA-funded Seismic Considerations Series, 

prepared by the Building Seismic Safety Council and published in the 

time period, 1988-1990, provided guidance on seismic safety and 

design-related issues to owners, managers, and designers of selected 

building types. The series consisted of the following documents:

❍ Seismic Considerations, Elementary and Secondary Schools

(FEMA 149 Report)

❍ Seismic Considerations, Health Care Facilities

(FEMA 150 Report)

❍ Seismic Considerations, Hotels and Motels (FEMA 151 Report)

❍ Seismic Considerations, Apartment Buildings

(FEMA 152 Report)

❍ Seismic Considerations, Office Buildings (FEMA 153 Report)

The documents were written to address seismic performance 

issues and cost-effective strategies for improving building seismic performance through engineering approaches and procedures laid out in the then state-of-the-art NEHRP Recommended 

Provisions for the Development of Seismic Regulation for New Buildings

(BSSC, 1988).

Since 1990, a considerable amount of new knowledge and 

information has been developed and published under the 
1-4 INTRODUCTION

National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program (NEHRP), a broad 

multidisciplinary and Congressionally-mandated research and development program, administered by four Federal agencies and funded at 

the level of approximately $100 million per year. The purpose of 

NEHRP is to improve the capacity of the nation’s built environment to 

resist the effects of earthquake induced ground shaking and the collateral hazards of landslide, liquefaction, ground failure, inundation, and 

postearthquake fires. 

Major new seismic hazard mitigation tools and strategies developed in 

the 1990s include:

❍ new seismic hazard maps, published by the U. S. Geological Survey, 

that incorporate (1) state-of-the-knowledge earthquake occurrence 

models, (2) state-of-the-knowledge ground motion attenuation relationships, and (3) new probability-of-occurrence levels that better 

characterize expected ground motions in regions of large, infrequent earthquakes;

❍ new performance-based seismic design concepts, criteria, and procedures, funded by FEMA and published in the FEMA 273 NEHRP 

Guidelines for the Seismic Rehabilitation of Buildings (ATC, 1997a), and 

its successor document, FEMA 356, Prestandard and Commentary for 

Seismic Rehabilitation of Buildings (ASCE, 2000), that enable the 

building owner and design engineer to evaluate and upgrade buildings to meet specific performance levels (e.g., collapse prevention, 

life safety, immediate occupancy, continued operation) for defined 

levels of earthquake ground shaking; and

❍ new seismic risk management strategies, developed largely by the 

private sector, which enable building owners and managers to 

reduce the financial impacts of earthquakes by diversifying the locations of operations, by obtaining higher levels of earthquake insurance, and by using securitization instruments, such as Catastrophic 

Bonds.

These new technological developments provide the necessary tools for 

building owners and managers, with the assistance of design professionals, to make and implement cost-effective decisions regarding seismic 

safety and seismic hazard mitigation. They also provide the impetus and 

justification for updating the original Seismic Considerations Series documents, which are based on seismic hazard information and engineering 

knowledge and concepts developed in the 1970s and 1980s.
INTRODUCTION 1-5

1.2 OBJECTIVES AND SCOPE OF THIS DOCUMENT

The objectives of this report are fourfold: (1) to summarize, in a qualitative fashion, important new concepts in performance-based seismic 

design and new knowledge about the seismic hazard facing the United 

States (in a way that can be easily communicated to building owners and 

managers); (2) to describe a variety of concepts for reducing seismic 

risk, including the means to reduce economic losses that are not related 

to engineering solutions; (3) to provide illustrative examples and graphical tools that can be used by the design community to more effectively 

“sell” concepts of seismic risk management and building performance 

improvements; and (4) to establish a means by which seismic engineering and financial risk management can be integrated to 

form a holistic seismic risk management plan. The overarching goal of the document is to provide a means to facilitate communications between building owners/managers 

and design professionals on the important issues affecting 

seismic risk decision making during the design and construction of new facilities, as well as the operational phase. 

Stated another way, this report may be considered as a 

framework for integrating seismic risk management into 

already well established project planning, design, and construction processes used by most owners and designers. 

The report is intended to be used in:

❍ the initial project planning stages to address siting, general building 

performance considerations, and how the design process can incorporate performance-based design principles;

❍ the budgeting phase of a project to identify the resources that can 

be allocated to manage risk;

❍ the design phase of a project to assist in the layout of structural systems, define performance objectives, and perform benefit-cost analyses of various building options; and

❍ the construction administration phase of a project to achieve a high 

level of quality assurance and control, thereby increasing the likelihood that the facility, as constructed, will perform as expected.

In addition, the report provides information that pertains to risk management strategies that are not directly part of the project planning, 

design, and construction processes, but that owners and managers can 

use to mitigate earthquakes losses. These strategies, applicable to newly 

constructed buildings as well as existing facilities, should be considered 

in conjunction with engineering design and construction strategies 

The overarching goal of the 

document is to provide a means to 

facilitate communications between 

building owners/managers and 

design professionals on the 

important issues affecting seismic 

risk decision making during the 

design and construction of new 

facilities, as well as the operational 

phase.
1-6 INTRODUCTION

when developing a holistic seismic risk management plan for a new 

building. Thus the report is intended to also be beneficial in:

❍ evaluating the benefits of earthquake insurance and quantifying 

coverage needs;

❍ developing a postearthquake response and recovery program that 

may reduce down-time and potential loss of business following a 

major event;

❍ calculating the benefits of diversifying operations geographically or 

among different buildings within a single campus; and

❍ dealing with the risks associated with other types of hazards, both 

natural and man-made.

1.3 DOCUMENT CONTENTS AND ORGANIZATION

This document has been written and organized to assist building design 

professionals (architects and structural engineers) in communicating 

with building owners on earthquake risk, that is, to advise building owners on methods that could be employed to reduce their seismic risk. It 

is recognized that many design professionals may not be familiar with 

emerging concepts in (1) seismic risk management, (2) performancebased seismic design, and (3) seismic design and performance issues 

related to the specific occupancies discussed in this report—commercial office facilities, retail commercial facilities, light manufacturing 

facilities, healthcare facilities, local schools (kindergarten through 

grade 12), and higher education (university) facilities. These topics are 

therefore discussed in detail, including illustrations and tables designed 

to be used by the building design professionals when communicating 

with building owners on the means to reduce their seismic risk.

Seismic risk management is introduced and discussed in Chapter 2, 

including an overview discussion on seismic risk and discussions on a 

range of risk reduction strategies. This chapter also describes issues to 

be considered when developing a risk management plan, addressed in 

the context of the likelihood of potential losses. The identified risk 

reduction strategies consist of: (1) first cost or design strategies; (2) 

operating cost or business strategies, and (3) event response strategies. 

Also included are discussions on the selection of an optimal combination of risk reduction strategies, example applications of seismic risk 

management strategies on real buildings, and advocacy of seismic risk 

management.

The means for identifying and assessing earthquake-related hazards 

during the site selection process are described in Chapter 3. The chap-
INTRODUCTION 1-7

ter begins with a discussion of current approaches for seismic shaking 

hazard determination and assessment in the United States, followed by 

discussions on the collateral seismic hazards of surface fault rupture, 

soil liquefaction, soil differential compaction, landsliding, and inundation. Chapter 3 also discusses other earthquake-related hazards affecting building performance, including vulnerable transportation and 

utility systems (lifelines), the hazards posed by adjacent structures, the 

release of hazardous materials, and postearthquake fires. Specific guidance for assessing these earthquake related hazards during the site 

selection process, including a checklist for use by design professionals, 

is provided at the end of this chapter.

In Chapter 4, emerging concepts in performance-based seismic design 

are described. This chapter includes a discussion on (1) expected building performance when designing new buildings to current codes; and 

(2) state-of-the-art concepts in performance based seismic design, 

which were developed for the seismic rehabilitation of existing buildings and are beginning to be applied on a volunteer basis in the seismic 

design of new buildings. The chapter concludes with a description of 

next-generation performance-based seismic design products and tools 

for engineers and building owners/managers expected to become available over the next decade or so.

Chapter 5 focuses on ways to reduce seismic risk by improving building 

performance, a first cost or design risk reduction strategy. This chapter 

describes and discusses performance attributes of various structural systems and materials, selection of the architectural configuration, and the 

interaction of nonstructural components and systems with the building 

structure. Also included is a discussion of the costs and benefits associated with improved performance, as well as actual case studies describing structural system cost and performance considerations.

Building and expanding on the ways to improve seismic performance 

discussed in Chapter 5, the next six chapters (Chapters 6 through 11) 

briefly identify specific design issues associated with each of the six 

occupancy types considered in this document. In addition, each of 

these chapters provides examples of earthquake performance for that 

facility type and discusses performance expectations and requirements, 

and specific vulnerabilities. Chapters 6 and 7, respectively, address commercial office buildings and commercial retail buildings; Chapter 8 

addresses light manufacturing facilities; Chapter 9 focuses on healthcare facilities; and Chapters 10 and 11, respectively, address local 
1-8 INTRODUCTION

schools (kindergarten through grade 12) and higher education facilities (universities).

Chapter 12 addresses the various responsibilities of members of the 

design team, including the building owner, architect, structural engineer, and mechanical/electrical/plumbing engineers. This chapter also 

includes discussions on the added value of risk management and design 

and construction quality assurance.

Following Chapter 12 are a list of references and a list of individuals 

who participated in the development of this report.

1.4 DOCUMENT FORMATTING AND ICONS

Several icons, shown below, are used in highlighted portions of this document to emphasize pertinent information.

The Definition icon defines key terms and acronyms.

The Case Study icon provides practical and relevant information based on past experience.

The Resources icon provides supplemental information from 

FEMA and other organizations that may impact design considerations and decision-making. 

The Cost Consideration icon identifies a value or investment 

cost that needs to be considered in decision-making.

The Risk Consideration icon identifies a potential or real risk 

that needs to be considered in decision-making. 

The Design Consideration icon identifies a design issue that 

needs to be considered in decision-making. 
SEISMIC RISK MANAGEMENT 2-1

SEISMIC RISK MANAGEMENT 2

Chapter 2 introduces and describes seismic risk management, beginning with an overview of seismic risk, followed by discussions on the 

holistic nature of seismic risk management and on strategies for reducing seismic risk. These strategies fall into three categories: (1) first cost 

or design strategies; (2) operating cost or business strategies, and (3) 

event response strategies. Also included in this chapter are discussions 

on the selection of an optimal combination of risk reduction strategies, 

and example applications of seismic risk management strategies, including cost and performance considerations, described in three case studies. The chapter concludes with a discussion of the importance of 

seismic risk management advocacy. 

2.1 SEISMIC RISK: AN OVERVIEW

In general, the term “risk” is commonly used to characterize the likelihood of an unfavorable outcome or event occurring. The term “seismic 

risk” is used by the scientific and engineering communities to describe 

the likelihood of adverse consequences resulting from the 

occurrence of an earthquake. Seismic risk is typically 

defined as a function of three elements: (1) the seismic hazard or likelihood of occurrence of an earthquake and the 

associated severity of shaking, (2) the seismic vulnerability 

or expected damage to buildings and other structures given 

the occurrence of an earthquake, and (3) the expected 

consequences or losses resulting from the predicted damage. The third term, the expected consequences, is typically used to quantify the seismic risk to an individual 

facility, a group of facilities, or a region. For a building, 

these consequences or expected losses can be broadly categorized as:

❍ Casualties – the death or injury of building occupants or passersby 

resulting from the building collapse, blockage of exits, or failure of 

life safety systems; 

❍ Capital – the value of a building’s structural and nonstructural systems, including the structural framing elements, partitions, cladding, and mechanical, electrical, and plumbing systems;

❍ Contents – the value of, for example, a building’s fixed and movable 

equipment, goods for sale, laboratory and manufacturing equipment;

Seismic Risk

Seismic Risk is typically defined as a function of three 

elements:

(1) the seismic hazard or likelihood of occurrence of 

an earthquake and the associated severity of 

shaking,

(2) the seismic vulnerability or expected damage to 

buildings and other structures given the 

occurrence of an earthquake, and 

(3) the expected consequences or losses resulting 

from the predicted damage. 
2-2 SEISMIC RISK MANAGEMENT

❍ Business Interruption – the financial cost resulting from loss of 

operations; this consequence can be expressed in a variety of ways, 

depending on the use of the facility, e.g., lost revenue, inability to 

treat patients, teach students or conduct research; and

❍ Market Share – the future costs of losing a competitive edge; this 

consequence can also be expressed in a variety of ways, including 

loss of clients to competitors, having staff leave to work for competitors, and losing “prestige” and the business associated with an organization’s reputation.

Seismic risk, as defined above, can be reduced by a reduction in any of 

the three elements – seismic hazard, seismic vulnerability, and expected 

consequences. Seismic hazard can only be reduced by relocation of the 

building itself, as the likelihood of an earthquake occurring at a site and 

the severity of shaking is a function of the regional seismicity and local 

geology. If the building site is a fixed variable, seismic hazard and seismic vulnerability are often considered as one factor – the likelihood 

that the building will sustain earthquake damage. The combination of 

this factor, with the expected consequences given the occurrence of the 

earthquake damage, results in a measure of seismic risk. Thus seismic 

risk can be reduced by decreasing the likelihood of building damage 

(e.g., by relocating the building or by increasing the earthquake resisting capacity of the structure) or by decreasing the expected consequences (e.g., by developing a response plan, geographically 

diversifying operations, or purchasing insurance).

The concept of seismic risk, expressed as a function of the likelihood of 

damage and the expected consequences, is illustrated in Figure 2-1. 

The likelihood of damage is shown along the horizontal axis, increasing 

from left to right. As mentioned above, the likelihood of damage is a 

function of the seismic hazard level (expected earthquake occurrences 

and severity of ground shaking) and the seismic vulnerability (earthquake resisting capacity of the building). The consequences or losses 

resulting from the earthquake damage (or “consequence” in the more 

general risk term) are depicted on the vertical axis, increasing from bottom to top. The quantification of seismic risk is not a simple task; however, the graph shown in Figure 2-1 is simplified qualitatively as four 

distinct quadrants, each of which is described below with example scenarios. 

Quadrant I, Low Risk: low likelihood of damage and low consequences; 

examples include:
SEISMIC RISK MANAGEMENT 2-3

❍ A national chain retail store in seismically active northern California; the building has been designed to perform well during severe 

earthquake ground motions and potential loss of use of one building out of hundreds would not disastrously affect the owner’s business.

❍ An abandoned warehouse in Texas; the seismic hazard is extremely 

low and the value to the owner is small.

Quadrant II, Moderate Risk: low likelihood of damage and high consequences; an example is:

❍ A well-designed hospital in South Carolina; the probability of severe 

earthquake ground motions is low but the hospital has 100 critical 

care beds and an occupancy of 2,000.

Quadrant III, Moderate Risk: high likelihood of damage and low consequences; an example is:

❍ A small storage facility for a national distributor located in a high 

seismic zone and designed to pre-1950 standards. The building is 

vulnerable to damage but the loss would likely be relatively unimportant to the owner.

Quadrant IV, High Risk: high likelihood of damage and high consequences; examples include:

❍ A private day care center designed by an inexperienced engineer 

two miles from an active fault in a highly seismic region. Lack of 

knowledge of the hazards associated with near fault sites could 

result in injury to dozens of children.

Figure 2-1 Seismic risk, expressed graphically as a function of likelihood 

of damage and consequences given the occurrence of the 

damage.
2-4 SEISMIC RISK MANAGEMENT

❍ A high-tech chip manufacturing plant in southern California, 

designed and built to the minimum requirements of the current 

code. The likelihood that a code-minimum building will experience extensive non-structural damage is high and business interruption could be devastating to the owner.

2.2 SEISMIC RISK MANAGEMENT: A HOLISTIC 

APPROACH FOR REDUCING EARTHQUAKE 

IMPACTS

Seismic risk management is simply the act of managing activities and 

decision making relating to building design, construction, and operations so as to reduce the impact of earthquakes. 

One of the purposes of this document is to provide building design professionals with tools and strategies to help 

owners and managers make cost-effective seismic-risk management decisions. The document therefore describes and 

compares various strategies, including reducing the likelihood of earthquake damage and reducing consequences, 

or both. The document also provides information on estimating future costs resulting from earthquake damage and 

other impacts as well as the costs to improve performance in future 

earthquakes.

The likelihood of earthquake damage is a function of the seismic hazard at the site and the seismic vulnerability of the building. Seismic hazard is addressed in the context of site selection and evaluation of sitespecific earthquake-related hazards, as discussed in Chapter 3. Seismic 

vulnerability is addressed in the context of performance-based design, a 

relatively new tool (discussed in Chapter 4) that engineers can use to 

adjust up or down the earthquake resisting capacity of a building, 

depending on the desired performance in future earthquakes.

Design variables and issues affecting seismic performance, along with 

guidance for calculating the cost of improving performance, are provided in Chapter 5. Chapter 5 also discusses the cost of improved seismic performance versus the cost of future earthquake damage and loss, 

including indirect costs resulting, for example, from time out of service. 

The means to quantify these costs are also discussed. The key to making 

wise investment decisions, as discussed in Chapter 5, can be found in a 

three-step process that consists of:

❍ quantifying the amount and likelihood of losses that buildings may 

suffer in future earthquakes,

Seismic Risk Management

Seismic risk management is the act of managing 

activities and decision making relating to building 

design, construction, and operations so as to reduce 

the impact of earthquakes. 
SEISMIC RISK MANAGEMENT 2-5

❍ estimating the expected reduction in future losses that can be 

achieved through various risk management programs, including 

performance-based design, and

❍ calculating the costs of implementing these programs, and comparing them to the estimated reduction in losses.

As with any other investment, the building owner weighs the expected 

return against the possible risk of not achieving that return. Equally 

important is the need to weigh the cost of the lost opportunity if the 

investment is not made. Examples abound in decision making involving such trade-offs, whether they relate to earthquake risk or other matters.

Specific seismic risk management strategies that focus on reducing the 

consequences or losses associated with earthquake damage are 

addressed later in this chapter, in terms of financial or business strategies and response planning strategies. Examples of 

these strategies include:

❍ diversifying operations so that all of an owner’s operations are not concentrated in vulnerable buildings,

❍ obtaining insurance or other financial instruments to 

cover potential losses,

❍ establishing options to lease or buy replacement space 

after an event, or to immediately bring in contractors for 

repairs, and 

❍ implementing pre-event planning and developing postearthquake response and recovery programs to speed the 

process of business resumption.

It is often more effective, but typically more costly, to reduce 

seismic risk by reducing the likelihood that the earthquake 

damage will occur. By reducing seismic vulnerability, the 

uncertainties associated with estimating consequences of the 

expected damage and responding after a significant event are 

lessened. However, the initial costs of providing improved 

performance may never be recovered if an earthquake doesn’t occur 

during the functional life of the facility. Reducing seismic risk by reducing the estimated consequences of a damaging earthquake often 

involves lower spending on an annual basis or incurring costs to repair 

or restore functionality once the event occurs. Large investments are 

not needed up front. In this case, while the likelihood of damage is not 

Examples of Risk Management Strategies

1. Most businesses, whether commercial, industrial, 

or non-profit, know that reducing workplace 

injuries reduces expected costs in the future. 

Experience shows that capital spent today to 

install safety equipment and ergonomic furniture, 

and to conduct safety training for employees, can 

generate a positive return on investment by 

preventing future claims and reducing insurance 

premiums.

2. When deciding on a structural system for a new 

building, an initial extra 10% investment may 

result in less damage in future earthquakes. The 

benefit of not having to suffer as high a loss of 

capital, contents, and business interruption over 

the building’s life can be compared to the 

investment cost at a given discount rate to 

determine the return and value of the investment.
2-6 SEISMIC RISK MANAGEMENT

reduced, the intent is to reduce seismic risk by enabling a quicker 

response and recovery.

The move to a performance-based design philosophy is a significant 

advance that can assist in seismic risk management, if it can be efficiently implemented into the building code development and design 

process.

2.3 EVALUATING SEISMIC RISK CONSEQUENCES 

AS A BASIS FOR DEVELOPING A RISK 

MANAGEMENT PLAN

The first step in developing a seismic risk management plan is to determine the nature and magnitude of the current risks. For a building or 

group of buildings, structural analysis procedures can relate potential 

damage to the intensity of shaking for a certain size earthquake. As the 

size of the earthquake increases, so does the total potential direct and 

indirect loss. Although the size of the loss increases with increasing 

magnitude, the likelihood of experiencing the loss decreases with 

increasing magnitude as the probability of earthquake occurrence also 

decreases with increasing magnitude. 

Based on the likelihood of potential losses, one can determine the presumed capability to manage loss. Some owners and managers might 

rely on government assistance in combination with in-house resources 

to cover potential losses. The limit of these funds to pay for recovery 

costs would define current manageable loss. Losses in excess of this 

limit would be catastrophic and threatening to the business or institution. Figure 2-2 demonstrates this concept; the horizontal line defines 

the boundary between manageable and catastrophic loss. The intersection of the horizontal manageable loss line with the potential total loss 

curve defines the likelihood or risk of catastrophic loss. If this risk is too 

high, it can be reduced by increasing the capability to manage loss 

(moving the horizontal line up in Figure 2-2) and by reducing the 

potential loss curve with a higher performance objective for the building. Note that in Figure 2-2, the likelihood of the potential loss occurring is directly related to the probability of the earthquake, i.e., a 

smaller magnitude event corresponds to a high potential for occurrence and a larger magnitude event corresponds to a low potential for 

occurrence.

The capability to manage risks depends on the combination of several 

investment strategies on the part of facilities owners and managers. The 

first source of recovery funding is out-of-pocket expenses using in-house 
SEISMIC RISK MANAGEMENT 2-7

resources to cover losses. This may be supplemented by some sort of 

government disaster assistance. For example, Stanford University covered all of its costs resulting from the 1989 Loma Prieta earthquake with 

its own funds, supplemented by funds from the Federal Emergency 

Management Agency and the California State Office of Emergency Services. Small businesses may be able to obtain low interest recovery loans 

to increase their own resources.

Conventional insurance is a fairly common means of increasing manageable loss levels. This may be appropriate for smaller owners, 

whereas capacity might be a problem for a large institution such as a 

major university or hospital organization. Insurance rates fluctuate with 

the perceived market, and settlement delays can be quite costly in some 

cases. The capital markets may offer the flexibility to design financial 

instruments directly to suit an owner’s specific needs using catastrophe 

bonds, which are effectively a combination of a loan and insurance. 

Conventional insurance and capital market investments can be used to 

increase the capability to manage loss. As discussed in Section 2.5, the 

Figure 2-2 Illustration of risk of experiencing catastrophic earthquake 

losses. Concept assumes building, or inventory of buildings, is 

located close to earthquake source region.
2-8 SEISMIC RISK MANAGEMENT

optimal combination of these alternatives depends on insurance market 

conditions, interest rates, bonding capacity of the building owner, and 

other factors. Increasing the manageable loss level reduces the risk of 

catastrophic loss by elevating the horizontal loss limit line as illustrated 

in Figure 2-3.

Other strategies that can increase the level of manageable risk include 

the establishment of postearthquake response and recovery programs, 

which may reduce the amount of lost operations time through rapid 

engineering inspection and construction or repairs, or by obtaining 

alternate operating space quickly after an event. This is discussed further in Section 2.6.

Another important element of a risk management plan involves increasing the expected earthquake performance of the building, thereby lowering the potential loss curve. Mitigation reduces the risk of 

catastrophic loss by lowering the likelihood that the design earthquake 

would cause losses that exceed the manageable loss limit. The implementation of a mitigation strategy may include, as described in Section 

Figure 2-3 Illustration of reduction in risk of catastrophic earthquake losses.
SEISMIC RISK MANAGEMENT 2-9

2.4, designing new facilities to higher performance objectives, in order 

to limit losses over the building’s life. This can apply to the replacement of outdated facilities or new facilities required as a result of company expansion needs.

The technical and financial parameters of a risk management plan all 

have associated uncertainties. Selecting the optimal combination of 

risk management strategies requires consideration of these uncertainties to assess the reliability of the decision making process. In addition, 

an integrated financial and technical model is necessary to test alternative strategies. The end result is a risk management plan that maximizes 

the return on investment to manage losses and reduce risk to an acceptable level over a fixed future time period. The flowchart shown in 

Figure 2-4 illustrates the various strategies that comprise a typical risk 

management plan and the options, or steps, for evaluating the strategies to select the optimal risk reduction solution. These three groups of 

strategies and related steps (outlined in Figure 2-4) are discussed in the 

next three sections.

2.4 FIRST COST OR DESIGN STRATEGIES

First cost or design risk reduction strategies are techniques that reduce 

the likelihood of damage to a structure. The term “first cost” is generally defined as an investment requiring a large capital outlay, whether or 

not it is truly spent near the start of a project. A capital investment of 

$10 million on a new building will most likely be amortized over some 

length of time, typically much longer than that actually required to construct the building. The owner is still responsible for the entire debt 

principal once the loan is secured, and often the debt goes “on the 

books” as a reduction in the amount of capital available for other investments.

First cost strategies reduce damage potential by either reducing the site 

hazards associated with a building or by increasing the expected performance of the building.

Reduce Site Hazards

An owner can reduce site hazards by reducing the intensity of earthquake shaking expected at the building site over the life of the structure, and by eliminating or reducing the potential for other seismic 

hazards, such as fault rupture, liquefaction, landslide, and inundation. 

Several techniques for accomplishing this are described below. 
2-10 SEISMIC RISK MANAGEMENT

Figure 2-4 Flow chart for identifying, evaluating, and selecting risk-reduction strategies to develop a risk 

management plan.

Determine Risk

Identify and Quantify

Potential Losses

First Cost / Design

Strategies

Event Response

Strategies

Reduce

Hazards

Reduce

Vulnerability

Evaluate and Select Optimal

Combination of Strategies

Identify Strategies

Relocate to

better soil Reduce

response

Engineer soil

material

Relocate

to lower

seismic zone

Increase

capacity

Diversify

operations

Maintain

Procedures

and Materials

Utilize

securitization

instruments

Purchase

insurance

Train

inspectors

Set-up

retainer

agreements

Operating Cost / Business

Strategies

Mirror

operations

Emergency

Operations

Centers

Implement Strategies
SEISMIC RISK MANAGEMENT 2-11

❍ Locate the building in a region of lower seismicity, where earthquakes 

occur less frequently or with typically smaller intensities. This 

option is generally the most effective strategy solely in terms of 

reducing the potential for earthquake damage to a facility, whether 

it be caused by ground shaking, fault rupture, liquefaction, landslide, or inundation. Locating a building in Dallas, Texas, for example, will almost guarantee that it will never be damaged by an 

earthquake. Of course, this option isn’t possible for many building 

owners.

While certainly less desirable, and possibly quite costly from a market share and cost of operations standpoint, universities, manufacturing facilities, commercial offices and, to some degree, 

commercial retail owners, can use this strategy to manage their 

risks. Although it may not be practical for a university to build a 

new classroom facility across the country, locating some services off 

the main campus may be an option. For example, a university on 

the San Francisco peninsula located near the San Andreas Fault has 

considered siting a rare books depository approximately 75 miles 

south of campus, in an area of significantly less seismicity. It is also 

fairly common for high technology manufacturing plants to be 

located far from their headquarter locations, at sites with low seismicity such as Texas, Massachusetts, or Idaho. While it would be 

very rare for a retail establishment to make a siting decision based 

on seismic risk over the demographics of the market in a particular 

region, moving a store even a few miles in some cases can make a 

measurable difference in seismic hazard, e.g., moving a proposed 

building location from within a mile of a major fault to five miles 

away.

❍ Locate the building on a soil profile that reduces the hazard. Local soil profiles can be highly variable, especially near water, on sloped surfaces, 

or close to faults. In an extreme case, siting on poor soils can lead 

to liquefaction, landsliding, or lateral spreading. Often, as was the 

case in the 1989 Loma Prieta earthquake near San Francisco, similar 

structures located less than a mile apart each performed in dramatically different ways because of differing soil conditions. Even when 

soil-related hazards are not present, the amplitude, duration, and 

frequency content of earthquake motions that have to travel 

through softer soils can be significantly different than those traveling through firm soils or rock.

An owner who is concerned about the effects of soil properties on 

risk should be encouraged to consult geotechnical and structural 

Strategies to Reduce

Seismic Hazards

Relocate to

better soil

Engineer soil

material

Relocate

to lower

seismic zone
2-12 SEISMIC RISK MANAGEMENT

engineers to gauge the potential hazards associated with differing 

site conditions. These should be weighed against the costs, both 

direct and indirect, of locating the facility on soils that will result in 

better performance.

❍ Engineer the soil profile to increase building performance and reduce vulnerability. If relocating to a region of lower seismicity or to an area with 

a better natural soil profile is not a cost effective option, the soil at 

the designated site can often be re-engineered to reduce the hazard. On a liquefiable site, for instance, the soil can be grouted or 

otherwise treated to reduce the likelihood of liquefaction occurring. Soft soils can be excavated and replaced, or combined with 

foreign materials to make them stiffer. The building foundation 

itself can be modified to account for the potential effects of the soil, 

reducing the building’s susceptibility to damage even if liquefaction 

or limited landsliding does occur.

The owner should weigh the additional costs of modifying the soil 

profile or the building foundation (which may be quite significant 

in certain cases) with the expected reduction in damage and loss.

Improve Building Performance

An owner can reduce vulnerability by increasing the performance of 

the building, thereby reducing the damage expected in earthquakes. 

There are two methods by which this is typically accomplished:

❍ Reduce the response of the building to earthquake shaking. An earthquake 

generates inertial forces in a building that are a function of the 

structure’s mass, stiffness, and damping, and of the acceleration and 

frequency of the earthquake motion. The parameters associated 

with the earthquake can only be altered by reducing hazards, as 

described above. While the actual mass of the building (the weight 

of the structure, contents, and people) typically cannot be significantly altered, the effective mass can be changed by providing special devices, such as passive or active mass dampers, that can 

effectively reduce the overall mass that is accelerated by the earthquake. Stiffness can be altered by modifying the structural system 

(e.g., concrete shear wall, steel moment frame) or by using braces 

and seismic dampers. The building’s fundamental period, which is 

an important parameter in determining building response, can be 

significantly increased (and resulting forces reduced) by providing 

seismic isolating devices at the building foundation.

Strategies to Reduce

Vulnerability / Improve

Performance

Reduce

response

Increase

capacity
SEISMIC RISK MANAGEMENT 2-13

Engineers familiar with the use of these response-modifying devices 

can relatively easily quantify both the costs and benefits of employing them in buildings. When these types of products were new to 

the building industry, they were generally expensive. Today, with 

competition in the marketplace, they are much more common and 

costs have dropped dramatically.

❍ Increase the capacity of the building to resist earthquake forces. The most 

traditional method for decreasing vulnerability of buildings is to 

make them “stronger.” By increasing the forces that a building can 

resist, such as by providing larger structural elements or increasing 

the amount of bracing for nonstructural systems, less damage would 

be expected. This strategy can be costly and, in some cases, may not 

be the most efficient means of increasing performance. Another 

option is to increase the ductility of the structural or nonstructural 

systems, improving their ability to absorb the energy of the earthquake without permanent damage.

Increasing the capacity of the building may be the most difficult 

strategy to quantify reliably because of the inherent complexity of 

most structural and nonstructural systems. However, the range of 

possible solutions (and costs) for increasing capacity is relatively 

large, thus this strategy is the often employed because it allows the 

engineer to fine-tune a design approach to meet an owner’s budget 

and risk management criteria.

2.5 OPERATING COST OR BUSINESS STRATEGIES

Operating cost or business risk reduction strategies are techniques that 

primarily enhance the capacity to manage losses, by effectively reducing 

the consequences of damage. The term "operating cost" is generally 

defined as an investment made on an annual or other regular basis.

Diversify Operations

An owner with geographically-dispersed buildings, or with an inventory 

consisting of buildings of various ages and seismic performance characteristics, can reduce overall earthquake risk by moving certain operations to buildings located in regions of lower seismic hazard or to 

buildings of higher seismic performance. This strategy can be finetuned when different operations carry different earthquake risks in 

terms of business disruption, loss of contents, or other impacts. For 

example, high resource operations, such as manufacturing or administration, can be relocated to new, higher performing buildings, while 

Diversify

operations

Utilize

securitization

instruments 

Purchase

insurance

Operating Cost / Business

Strategies
2-14 SEISMIC RISK MANAGEMENT

archival storage can be moved to older, more vulnerable ones. This can 

be done incrementally as new buildings are brought on line or over a 

defined timeframe so as to minimize the impact on operations.

Consider the following example of two manufacturing businesses. One 

runs 100% of its production from a single building in San Francisco. 

The other runs 50% each from one building in San Francisco and from 

one building in Seattle. There is a one percent annual chance in each 

city of an earthquake large enough to cause complete loss to the buildings. 

Company A

100% operations in San Francisco

1% annual risk of complete loss to San Francisco building

Overall result: a 1% annual risk of complete business loss

Company B

50% operations in San Francisco

50% operations in Seattle

1% annual risk of complete loss to San Francisco building

1% annual risk of complete loss to Seattle building

Overall result: 

❍ a 1% annual risk of 50% business loss due to San Francisco event

❍ a 1% annual risk of 50% business loss due to Seattle event

❍ a 2% annual risk of 50% business loss

❍ a 0.01% annual risk of complete business loss (1% × 1%)

As the number of sites grows, the risk of suffering a catastrophic loss to 

the business drops exponentially, even though the risk of suffering 

some loss grows. This assumes, of course, that the sites are independent. 

Having two similar buildings in San Francisco, within a mile of each 

other might not decrease the risk as substantially since a single earthquake could affect both. This methodology is used by insurance companies regularly to spread out their risk and reduce the potential for a 

single disaster causing more claims than they can settle.

Obtain Higher Levels of Insurance

An organization should ensure that it has a sufficient amount, and type, 

of insurance coverage to adequately protect against losses. This determination is typically made by an owner’s risk manager (or the insurance 

broker, acting on behalf of the owner). The risk manager must assess 

the cost of insurance relative to the potential costs of accepting the risk 
SEISMIC RISK MANAGEMENT 2-15

without insurance coverage. In most cases, investments in risk reduction (e.g., improving building performance or relocating to a lower risk 

area) will also result in insurance premium reductions. The risk manager must balance these different options by assessing the life cycle costs 

and benefits of each option. In order for the overall risk management 

plan to be effective, it is important for the organization’s risk manager 

to become an integral part of the management team making facility 

decisions, and that communications with the facility manager and the 

design team be open and complete.

Using Securitization Instruments

Conventional insurance is typically best suited for incidents that occur 

regularly, although possibly infrequently, such as fire and worker injury. 

Conventional insurance is also appropriate for losses that are easily 

quantifiable, such as losses to capital and inventory. For very rare or catastrophic losses, however, obtaining insurance coverage can often be 

cumbersome or costly. It becomes difficult to price insurance when the 

rates of incidents are uncertain and when coverage for indirect losses 

from business interruption or loss of market share is needed.

A newer instrument, commonly called a Catastrophe Bond (Cat Bond) 

has recently garnered some attention. Sold on the open market, the 

proceeds of these bonds (typically in the range of $10 million to $100 

million) are held in a financially secure trust. If an earthquake occurs 

within the period of the bond, and if the earthquake meets certain criteria in terms of size, location, or loss, some or all of the bond’s principal 

or interest is forfeited to the seller to assist recovery. While generally 

limited to reinsurance companies, a small number of large, private corporations have started offering Cat Bonds. When insurance rates are 

low, Cat Bonds are generally less attractive. However, when insurance 

rates are high, as is common after a disaster, bonds become more economical.

Large investment banks are generally the best source to help an owner 

explore securitization options. The owner should have adequate understanding of his or her expected losses in different events, however, so 

that the amount of the bond and the interest payments can be as small 

as possible and yet still cover potentially catastrophic damage. Design 

team members well versed in performance-based design, risk assessment, and loss estimation, can be a valuable resource to owners in this 

effort.
2-16 SEISMIC RISK MANAGEMENT

2.6 EVENT RESPONSE STRATEGIES

The goal of event response risk reduction strategies is to manage potential losses through quick recovery and response to damage caused by 

earthquakes. Similar to operating cost or business strategies, event 

response focuses on reducing the consequence of damage and loss, 

rather than reducing the likelihood of damage and loss occurring. Relative to first cost or design strategies, event response typically requires 

much lower initial costs, as well as lower annual operational costs. 

While event response does not typically reduce capital losses or the 

amount of repair that may be needed, it can speed up the process of 

recovery through effective pre-event planning.

Emergency Response Procedures and Materials

The simplest form of an event response strategy can consist of maintaining procedures, equipment, and materials on-site for aiding the evacuation of building tenants. Most companies and institutions have at least a 

basic emergency kit and response procedures for evacuating people 

from a potentially hazardous building after an earthquake or during a 

fire. This level of planning can be implemented at a minimal cost. It 

may aid in the evacuation of the building and the treatment of injuries, 

but will not reduce capital or business interruption losses.

Pre-Event Disaster Training and Inspection Services

A second strategy is to develop and provide formal disaster training for 

employees and building personnel. Many large companies have instituted basic emergency response training for their employees, which 

includes basic safety and medical training. It may also include primer 

level education on how buildings respond in earthquakes and what telltale signs of building damage might indicate potential safety or operational hazards. These programs are generally not technically 

sophisticated, and are not intended to be a substitute for professional 

emergency response or engineering personnel. They can, however, 

reduce lost time in the event that damage is minimal and if building 

occupants are efficiently organized in the recovery effort.

A key component of event response is the ability to adequately identify 

what building damage means in terms of occupant safety and building 

functionality. To be done reliably, this requires the use of professional 

engineers and architects who have taken comprehensive training in the 

evaluation of earthquake damaged structures. Building owners and tenants can not reasonably be expected to accept the liability of deciding 

Event Response

Strategies

Maintain

Procedures

and Materials

Train

inspectors 

Set-up

retainer

agreements 

Mirror

operations

Emergency

Operations

Centers
SEISMIC RISK MANAGEMENT 2-17

whether a building is safe to occupy. Thus, post-event engineering 

inspections are an important tool in an overall event response strategy. 

Large organizations will typically keep architects or structural, mechanical, and electrical engineers on retainer to quickly respond after a 

major event. They will be authorized to make safety inspections of owner's facilities using guidelines typically established by the local jurisdiction, such as the ATC-20 postearthquake building safety evaluation procedures (ATC, 

1989, 1995, 1996). They will then make recommendations 

to the building owner and put up signs noting whether the 

building is safe to enter, unsafe, or has restricted access in 

some fashion. 

For owners or tenants of several buildings, this strategy 

should include the entire network of buildings that could 

be affected by an earthquake. Inspectors will be used most 

efficiently if they are sent to the buildings that are most 

severely damaged. For critical facilities, such as hospitals, it 

is advantageous to predict in advance the expected safety 

inspection postings—INSPECTED (green placard), RESTRICTED USE 

(yellow placard), and UNSAFE (red placard)—for all buildings on site. 

Procedures to be followed in developing and using such posting predictions are provided in the ATC-51-1 report, Recommended U.S.-Italy Collaborative Procedures for Earthquake Emergency Response Planning for Hospitals in 

Italy (ATC, 2002)

On-Retainer Temporary Space and Repair Contractors

A relatively new strategy being employed by some businesses is to obtain 

disaster lease or repair options for their facilities. Organizations may 

execute agreements with local contractors and property owners to provide them with a choice of available temporary space and for the labor 

necessary to repair damaged facilities. If an organization's buildings are 

damaged to the point that they are not functional and need significant 

repair, the owner would have the first right of refusal on any available 

space that a landlord has, at an agreed-upon set of pre-event prices, and 

on the use of personnel from local contractors. The organization, in 

return, provides a yearly retainer for the service. 

Contingency planning companies offer building owners a service 

referred to as a "hot site." This is typically a fully equipped and functional facility (usually office space) that can be occupied fairly rapidly, 

whenever the owner's facility becomes unusable as the result of a natuPre-Event Disaster Training and Inspection

1. ATC-20, Procedures for Postearthquake Safety 

Evaluation of Buildings (ATC, 1989), 

2. ATC-20-1, Field Manual: Postearthquake Safety 

Evaluation of Buildings (ATC, 1989), 

3. ATC-20-2, Addendum to the ATC-20 Postearthquake 

Building Safety Evaluation Procedures (ATC, 1995). 

4. ATC-20-3, Case Studies in Rapid Postearthquake Safety 

Evaluation of Buildings, (ATC, 1996)

5. ATC-51-1, Recommended U.S.-Italy Collaborative 

Procedures for Earthquake Emergency Response 

Planning for Hospitals in Italy (ATC, 2002)
2-18 SEISMIC RISK MANAGEMENT

ral or man-made disaster. Such a service can significantly reduce or 

eliminate the costs of business disruption resulting from earthquake 

damage. The service does not usually include the repair of the owner's 

damaged facility.

Facility and Data Mirroring

A formal business occupancy resumption program may include developing procedures by which critical information and the ability to conduct business are backed up or duplicated at alternate sites. This can 

range from electronically backing up and storing computer data at an 

off-site location to supplying company-wide transportation assistance to 

and from the employees' place of business, to having a plan to swiftly 

relocate operations to other offices or locations. Depending on the 

nature of the business, one or more of these options may be applicable. 

Emergency Operations Centers

An emergency operations center is typically a hardened facility in which 

managers can conduct the emergency response and recovery effort. 

This facility will be constructed or located so that it can be operational 

after a major event. It should house emergency communications equipment, information on buildings and their contents, and have access to 

maps and information detailing the extent of damage both to the 

owner's facilities and the surrounding areas. The emergency operations 

center should be stocked so as to remain operational for at least 72 

hours. For owners with large inventories of buildings or where a complex network of inspection and recovery is needed, the creation of an 

emergency operations center can be an effective strategy to ensure that 

building safety is rapidly evaluated and business resumption can occur 

as soon as it is safe and possible to do so.

2.7 CHOOSING AN OPTIMAL COMBINATION OF 

RISK REDUCTION STRATEGIES

Choosing an optimal combination of risk reduction strategies among those described above involves weighing the 

costs and potential savings associated with each option. The 

goal is to determine which combination results in the best 

return on investment. The basic steps that should be taken 

to identify an optimal combination of risk reduction strategies include the following.

Steps to Identify an Optimal Combination of 

Risk Reduction Strategies

1. Identify potential losses 

2. Quantify losses

3. Identify risk reduction strategies

4. Select and implement strategies
SEISMIC RISK MANAGEMENT 2-19

1. Identify potential losses. These losses include, as described earlier, 

capital, contents, casualties, business interruption, and market 

share. A qualitative description of the type of damage that could be 

suffered is an appropriate starting point. This should include the 

use of engineering evaluation and performance-based design (see 

Chapter 4). For a range of earthquake scenarios or probabilities, a 

description of the type of capital and contents damage, estimates of 

casualties, and estimates of the duration of business interruption 

can be made by evaluating the structural and nonstructural behavior of the building under the given shaking intensity (See Section 

5.7 for additional discussion). The design team and facilities staff 

should work as a team to identify, as examples, how long building 

operations will be shut down if shear walls in a building are cracked 

to the extent that structural repair is necessary, or what the average 

continuous occupancy of a classroom is over the course of a month.

2. Quantify losses. After the losses are qualitatively identified, they need 

to be translated into a common quantitative measure. The total 

value of both anticipated direct and indirect losses should be determined. In some cases, indirect losses will need to be converted into 

a direct cost equivalent through a value-based conversion; e.g., total 

manufacturing days lost, or hospital bed days lost. 

3. Identify risk reduction strategies. Once losses have been quantified, 

the design team and owner’s representatives should explore methods for reducing these losses, using the strategies described above; 

i.e., first cost or design strategies, operating cost or business strategies, or event response strategies. The team should identify as many 

options within each method as practical, estimating the cost to 

implement each and the expected savings in terms of reduced 

losses. 

For first cost or design strategies, various performance objectives 

should be considered for the new building. For example, the baseline scheme would be a building that meets the minimum provisions of the applicable building code. A higher performance 

objective might be one in which the building is not necessarily functional after the design event, but in which operations can be 

restored within a relatively short period of time. A still higher performance objective may be a building that is designed to remain 

fully functional in the design event. For each higher performance 

option, a conceptual level of structural and nonstructural design 

should be performed to determine an approximate cost difference 
2-20 SEISMIC RISK MANAGEMENT

above the baseline option. It is generally sufficient to make rough 

order approximations of costs.

For each design strategy, the performance of the building is then 

translated into an expected loss (both direct and indirect) in a 

range of earthquake scenarios with different probabilities of occurrence. To facilitate comparisons, these should be translated into an 

expected annual loss and converted to a present value at an 

assumed discount rate.

For operating cost or business strategies, different options such as 

insurance, securitization, and lease/repair options should be 

explored. The annual premiums to obtain specified amounts of 

insurance can be calculated with the help of the owner’s insurance 

brokers. It is important to understand whether the insurance will 

also cover business interruption losses, or only capital and contents. 

For larger owners, catastrophe linked securities can also be considered. Typically, the coverage provided by such securities ranges 

from $10 million to $100 million, so smaller entities would not find 

these products appropriate. Lease/repair options can be developed 

with contractors and landlords in the nearby vicinity of the building, 

typically for an annual retainer fee. For all of these options, annual 

costs should be converted to a present value in order to facilitate a 

comparison with the other strategies.

For event response strategies, the design team should develop an 

outline of some specific options, such as a post-earthquake inspection program or the establishment of an emergency operations center. Annual or initial costs can be relatively easily estimated from 

this, as they will typically be small relative to the other strategies. 

The main benefit of this strategy will be to reduce down time as a 

result of better pre-event planning. The resulting savings should be 

approximated in terms of the daily cost of lost operations, multiplied by the expected reduction in lost time. These costs and savings should also be annualized and converted to a present value for 

comparison purposes.

4. Select and implement strategies. Once the various options within each 

strategy group have been evaluated and quantified, the team should 

consider permutations of each to determine the ones with the overall greatest benefit-to-cost ratios. Other factors may make certain 

strategies less desirable (such as the difficulty of a local school commission passing a bond measure for a seismic improvement capital 

outlay). Where appropriate, each option should be given a weight-
SEISMIC RISK MANAGEMENT 2-21

ing factor to express its desirability apart from purely economic factors. Once the optimal combination of strategies is selected, the 

owner and design team should develop a plan to implement them 

as part of the overall design process.

2.8 EXAMPLE IMPLEMENTATION OF A RISK 

MANAGEMENT PROGRAM

The following example illustrates how a hypothetical company 

might develop a risk management program.

Description of company

A Hayward, California company manufactures computer memory 

boards for large computer makers. The company’s annual revenues are 

$100 million. All manufacturing is done in a single building with administration in a separate facility located in the same office park about 

three miles from the Hayward Fault. The company is planning to 

expand in the next three years, to double its annual revenues. It will buy 

a second manufacturing facility and construct a new office building.

Establishment of risk tolerance

Because the company currently has only four major clients it has determined that the risk of losing a substantial amount of revenue due to 

being dropped by a client is intolerable. It has decided to permit no 

more than 5% annual chance that lost client revenue exceed 10% of its 

revenue. Being near the Hayward Fault, the company concludes that it 

should not arbitrarily tolerate a large earthquake risk.

Current seismic risks

The company has conducted an engineering analysis of its current 

buildings and calculated the seismic risk. In a Hayward Fault event with 

a 5% annual chance of exceedence, capital and contents losses could 

reach $10 million. Loss of operations could cost another $25 million. 

The total direct losses of $35 million exceeds 10% of the company’s revenue. 

Risk Management Strategies

First cost / design strategies – The company can either buy new properties in the same office park or across the San Francisco Bay. By grouping 

all the buildings in the same location, the seismic hazard remains 

unchanged. However, the consequence of an earthquake on the Hayward Fault is increased because all of the buildings are likely to be 

affected. By separating the buildings geographically, the vulnerability of 
2-22 SEISMIC RISK MANAGEMENT

all four buildings being damaged by an earthquake in a year becomes 

negligible, although the chance that at least two of them will be affected 

by any event goes up. Engineers calculate that diversifying the regional 

location of operations reduces the overall risk most effectively. This 

results in reduced capital, contents and business interruption losses 

associated with a 5% annual chance of exceedence to $31 million, or 

15.5% of the now doubled $200 million annual revenues.

Operating cost / business strategies – The company considers two operating cost options to further reduce the risk to its target tolerance. It 

can either obtain insurance to cover the remaining losses not managed 

by the improved first cost strategies, or it can implement a program of 

incremental retrofit of the two manufacturing buildings, to reduce their 

vulnerability. The company decides that the most cost effective option is 

to obtain insurance to cover (after deductibles) $5,000,000 of remaining potential losses above its tolerance. This represents 2.5% of the 

company’s annual revenues

Event response strategies – The company decides to establish a postearthquake response program, whereby it contracts with local engineers 

and contractors to provide immediate post-event inspections and repair 

design. The annual cost of developing and maintaining the program is 

$40,000 per year for the four buildings. The company conservatively 

estimates that in a moderate-to-large earthquake it could save at least a 

week-and-a-half of lost operations by having an engineer on board 

immediately. This equates to $6 million, or 3% of the annual revenue.

The three strategies together result in the following risk management 

program that meets the company’s tolerance.

Vulnerability assumes hazard with 5% annual chance of exceedence:

First cost strategy: Total losses = $31 million (15.5% of revenues)

Operating cost strategy: Reduces total losses by $5 million, to $24 million (11% of revenues)

Event response strategy: Reduces business interruption and total losses 

by $6 million, to $20 million (10% of revenues)

2.9 SEISMIC RISK MANAGEMENT ADVOCACY

Corporate cultures, especially those related to perception and tolerance 

of risk, are difficult to change. As a result, encouraging a corporate or 

institutional mindset to place a higher emphasis on seismic risk man-
SEISMIC RISK MANAGEMENT 2-23

agement will usually require one or more “champions” who can work 

from both within and outside the organization.

From within an organization, the organization’s risk manager or a top 

level staff member from the facilities department is the likely most 

appropriate in-house champion, as these individuals are likely to have 

both a broad understanding of the company’s corporate and business 

goals, and detailed knowledge of the design and construction process. 

The in-house champion will be expected to introduce seismic risk management standards, establish design priorities, quantify the consequences of losses, develop ongoing risk reduction processes, and keep 

the facilities department staff aware of their activities and findings. This 

champion must also be able to persuade upper level management of 

the need for such changes in policies and procedures. This will often 

require that the in-house champion “speak” in two languages – one 

technical and the other financial.

The design team should also act to champion the seismic risk management cause at early stages of discussion regarding a new building. In 

current practice, most design teams are organized under the direction 

of the project architect, who typically has a direct relationship to the 

building owner. Therefore, the external champion may be someone 

from within the project architect’s office.

It is important that both internal and external champions believe that 

seismic risk management truly adds value to their services and to the 

overall design process. Additionally, the external champion should 

establish a relationship with the internal champion, in order to leverage 

and support each others efforts, and to further the risk management 

process.
2-24 SEISMIC RISK MANAGEMENT
IDENTIFYING AND ASSESSING EARTHQUAKE- RELATED HAZARDS 3-1

IDENTIFYING AND ASSESSING EARTHQUAKERELATED HAZARDS 3

3.1 INTRODUCTION

This chapter provides an overview of earthquake-related hazards affecting buildings as well as guidance on how to consider these hazards in 

the site selection process for new buildings. While seismic shaking is 

potentially the greatest threat, the collateral seismic hazards of fault 

rupture, liquefaction, soil differential compaction, landsliding, and 

flooding (inundation) could also potentially occur at a site. In addition, 

there are other hazards associated with the built environment that may 

affect building performance in the earthquake aftermath. These 

include: (1) hazards arising from external conditions to the site, such 

as vulnerable lifelines (transportation, communication, and utility networks) and hazardous adjacent structures, including buildings close 

enough to pound against the building that is to be constructed at the 

site; (2) storage and distribution of hazardous materials, and (3) 

postearthquake fires.

Section 3.2 discusses seismic shaking hazards, including the current 

technical and code approaches for quantifying the shaking hazard. Section 3.3 identifies and discusses the collateral seismic hazards that 

should be considered in selecting an appropriate site for a new building 

(fault rupture, liquefaction, soil differential compaction, landsliding, 

and flooding). The other collateral hazards that could affect site selection decisions (vulnerable lifelines, hazardous adjacent structures, storage and distribution of hazardous materials, and postearthquake fires) 

are discussed in Section 3.4. Specific guidance on actions to be taken to 

assess earthquake-related hazards during the site selection process, 

including a checklist for site analysis, are provided in Section 3.5. 

Resources for further reading are provided in Section 3.6. All sections 

are written in technical terminology appropriate for design professionals to aid in communicating with building owners and managers.

3.2 EARTHQUAKE GROUND SHAKING HAZARD

The effects of ground shaking on building response are well known and 

extensively documented. Severe ground shaking can significantly damage buildings designed in accordance with seismic codes (Figures 3-1 

and 3-2) and cause the collapse of buildings with inadequate seismic 

resistance (Figures 3-3 and 3-4). 
3-2 IDENTIFYING AND ASSESSING EARTHQUAKE- RELATED HAZARDS

Figure 3-1 Six-story concrete-moment-frame medical building that was 

severely damaged by the magnitude-6.8 Northridge, California, 

earthquake of January 17, 1994. The building was 

subsequently demolished without removing contents. (photo courtesy of the Earthquake Engineering Research Center, University 

of California at Berkeley)

Figure 3-2 Eight-story reinforced-concrete-frame office building in Kobe, 

Japan that partially collapsed during the magnitude-7.8 

earthquake of January 17, 1995. Note that the sixth floor is 

missing, due to collapsed columns at that level. Seismic codes in 

Japan are essentially equivalent to those in the United States. 

(photo courtesy of C. Rojahn)

Collapsed Floor
IDENTIFYING AND ASSESSING EARTHQUAKE- RELATED HAZARDS 3-3

Figure 3-3 Older five-story reinforced concrete frame building in Managua, 

Nicaragua, that had inadequate seismic resistance and 

collapsed during the magnitude-6.2 earthquake of December 

23, 1972. (photo courtesy of C. Rojahn)

Figure 3-4 Preseismic-code ten-story reinforced-concrete-frame building in 

Bucharest, Romania, that partially collapsed during the 1977 

magnitude-7.2 earthquake approximately 65 miles north of 

Bucharest. (photo courtesy of C. Rojahn)
3-4 IDENTIFYING AND ASSESSING EARTHQUAKE- RELATED HAZARDS

Quantifying the Earthquake Ground Shaking Hazard

Seismic shaking is typically quantified using a parameter of motion, 

such as acceleration, velocity, or displacement. In current seismic 

codes, seismic design forces are defined in terms that relate to acceleration in the horizontal direction. A typical acceleration time-history of 

strong ground shaking is shown in Figure 3-5.

The earthquake ground shaking hazard for a given region or site can be 

determined in two ways: deterministically or probabilistically. A deterministic hazard assessment estimates the level of shaking, including the 

uncertainty in the assessment, at the building site for a 

selected or scenario earthquake. Typically, that earthquake is 

selected as the maximum-magnitude earthquake considered 

to be capable of occurring on an identified active earthquake 

fault; this maximum-magnitude earthquake is termed a characteristic earthquake. A deterministic analysis is often made 

when there is a well-defined active fault for which there is a 

sufficiently high probability of a characteristic earthquake 

occurring during the life of the building. The known past 

occurrence of such an earthquake, or geologic evidence of 

the periodic occurrence of such earthquakes in the past, are often considered to be indicative of a high probability for a future repeat occurrence of the event.

Probabilistic hazard assessment expresses the level of ground shaking 

with a specific, low probability of being exceeded in a selected time 

period, for example 10% probability of being exceeded in 50 years, or 

2% probability of being exceeded in 50 years, where 50 years is commonly chosen as the building design life. The seismic loading criteria 

in current U.S. building codes define design force levels based on 

ground motions specified in probabilistic seismic hazard maps. Such 

Figure 3-5 Typical acceleration time history of strong ground shaking.

-0.6

-0.4

-0.2

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (sec.)

Acceleration (g)

The earthquake ground shaking hazard for a given site 

can be determined in two ways: deterministically or 

probabilistically. A deterministic hazard assessment 

estimates the level of shaking at the building site for a 

selected or scenario earthquake. Probabilistic hazard 

assessment expresses the level of ground shaking at the 

site with a specific probability of being exceeded in a 

selected time frame (normally 50 years)
IDENTIFYING AND ASSESSING EARTHQUAKE- RELATED HAZARDS 3-5

maps include those showing expected peak ground acceleration and 

those showing expected peak spectral acceleration response at different 

building periods of vibration. Figure 3-6, which was prepared by the 

U.S. Geological Survey National Seismic Hazard Mapping Project, illustrates a probabilistic seismic hazard map showing the regional variation 

of ground shaking hazard in the contiguous United States. 

This map indicates that, although the level of earthquake activity is high 

in California, most parts of the United States are also exposed to a significant earthquake ground shaking hazard. In fact, large historic 

earthquakes in the United States have occurred outside California, in 

Missouri, Arkansas, South Carolina, Nevada, Idaho, Montana, 

Washington, Alaska, and Hawaii. Furthermore, current geologic studies have shown increasing evidence for large earthquake potential in areas that are popularly believed to be 

relatively quiet. Examples include the now-recognized subduction zones in Oregon and Washington, the Wasatch fault 

zone in Utah, and the Wabash Valley seismic zone in Illinois 

and Indiana.

Figure 3-6 Probabilistic seismic hazard maps showing ground shaking hazard zones in the contiguous United 

States. (from USGS National Seismic Hazard Mapping Project website: geohazards.cr.usgs.gov).

Although the level of earthquake activity is high in 

California, most parts of the United States are also 

exposed to a significant earthquake ground shaking 

hazard. 
3-6 IDENTIFYING AND ASSESSING EARTHQUAKE- RELATED HAZARDS

Probabilistic estimates of ground shaking at a given site can also be 

determined from a probabilistic ground shaking analysis for the site 

(often termed a “probabilistic seismic hazard analysis” or PSHA), 

whereby a geotechnical engineer determines and integrates contributions to the probability of exceedance of a ground motion level from all 

earthquake faults and magnitudes that could produce potentially damaging ground shaking at the site. Figure 3-7 illustrates relationships, 

termed “hazard curves,” which indicate the level of peak ground acceleration and annual frequency of exceedance for specified locations in 

seven major cities in the United States (which have been obtained from 

the USGS National Seismic Hazard Mapping Project). From relationships such as those shown in Figure 3-7, ground motions can be readily 

obtained for any selected probability of exceedance and building 

design life. 

For applications in performance-based design (see Chapter 4), both a 

probabilistic approach and a deterministic approach for the ground 

shaking hazard assessment may be used. Using a probabilistic 

approach, the seismic hazard can be integrated with the building resisFigure 3-7 Hazard curves for selected U.S. cities.
IDENTIFYING AND ASSESSING EARTHQUAKE- RELATED HAZARDS 3-7

tance characteristics to estimate expected damage or loss, or the probability of exceeding some level of damage or loss, during a time period of 

significance such as the anticipated building life or the period during 

which the building will have a particular use. Using a deterministic 

approach, the expected damage or loss, or the probability of exceeding 

either a specified damage level or a specified loss, may be assessed for 

an earthquake considered to be sufficiently likely that satisfactory building performance during the earthquake is desired.

Determining Design Ground Motions for a Specific Site

Design ground motion for a given site can be obtained from national 

ground motion maps, such as the map shown in Figure 3-6, which 

defines ground shaking for a reference (standard) rock condition. 

When using the national ground motion maps (e.g., Figure 3-6) to 

define design ground motions for a given site, published soil factors are 

used to adjust the mapped values to reflect the soil conditions at the 

site. National ground motion maps include purely probabilistic hazard 

representations (peak acceleration response with a 2% probability of 

exceedance in 50 years, or 10% probability of exceedance in 50 years), 

as developed by the U.S. Geological Survey (Frankel et al., 1996; 

Frankel et al., 2000; Frankel and Leyendecker, 2000). Maps of modified 

levels of these hazards incorporate deterministic bounds on ground 

motions near highly active faults. Maps containing deterministic 

bounds, which are termed Maximum Considered Earthquake (MCE) 

maps, are found in the 2000 NEHRP Recommended Provisions for Seismic 

Regulations for New Buildings and Other Structures (FEMA 368 report) and 

its companion Commentary (FEMA 369 report), or in the 2000 International Building Code (IBC). Site factors to adjust the level of ground shaking from the reference rock condition to various softer soil conditions 

are also contained in the FEMA 368 NEHRP Recommended Provisions for 

Seismic Regulations for New Buildings and Other Structures (BSSC, 2001) 

and the IBC (ICC, 2000).

Site-specific studies can also be done to supplement or bypass the 

national ground motion maps. Such studies are most often undertaken 

for sites having soft soil conditions not covered by site factors published 

in the EMA 368 NEHRP Recommended Provisions for Seismic Regulations for 

New Buildings and Other Structures or the IBC, for sites close to earthquake faults, and for buildings considered to be of sufficient importance to warrant additional focus on regional and area-specific factors 

affecting ground shaking. Site-specific studies offer the potential for a 

more detailed analysis of the uncertainty in the seismic ground shaking 
3-8 IDENTIFYING AND ASSESSING EARTHQUAKE- RELATED HAZARDS

hazard, as discussed below. If site-specific studies are conducted, they 

should be comprehensive and be subjected to detailed peer review.

Uncertainty in Hazard Assessment

Whether the seismic shaking hazard is estimated probabilistically or 

deterministically, there is always uncertainty in the hazard assessment 

and in the assessment of building performance. To provide a robust 

assessment of hazard, it is important to incorporate the uncertainty in 

aspects such as:

❍ magnitude of the largest (i.e., characteristic) earthquake that can 

occur on an earthquake fault;

❍ recurrence rates of earthquakes of different magnitudes on a fault;

❍ the most applicable ground-motion-estimation relationship for a 

particular site, given the available models published in the technical literature; and 

❍ site response effects.

Each of these examples of uncertainty will have a different impact on a 

seismic ground shaking hazard assessment, and studies to assess the sensitivity of the hazard uncertainty on building performance are often 

conducted by multidisciplinary teams containing both seismologists and 

engineers.

3.3 COLLATERAL SEISMIC HAZARDS

In addition to strong ground shaking, there are other (collateral) seismic hazards – surface fault rupture, soil liquefaction, soil differential 

compaction, landsliding, and flooding (inundation) – that 

are potentially so severe that they could impact development 

costs to such a degree as to cause the site to be rejected. 

Although such a severe condition is uncommon, the potential occurrence of these hazards during earthquakes should 

be considered during the site selection process. It should be 

noted that most current seismic design codes are not 

intended to prevent damage due to collateral seismic hazards. The 

codes provide minimum required resistance to earthquake groundshaking without consideration of settlement, slides, subsidence, or faulting in the immediate vicinity of the structure. Following are brief 

descriptions of these collateral hazards and their potential consequences.

Most current seismic design codes are not intended to 

prevent damage due to surface fault rupture; 

liquefaction, landslides, ground subsidence, or 

inundation.
IDENTIFYING AND ASSESSING EARTHQUAKE- RELATED HAZARDS 3-9

Surface Fault Rupture. Surface fault rupture is the abrupt shearing displacement that occurs along a fault that extends to the ground surface 

when the fault ruptures to cause an earthquake (Figure 3-8). Generally, 

a fault rupture extends to the ground surface only during earthquakes 

of magnitude 6 or higher. Surface fault shear displacements typically 

range from a few inches to a foot or two for a magnitude 6 earthquake, 

to 10 feet or more for a magnitude 7.5 earthquake. Because fault displacements tend to occur along a relatively narrow area defining the 

fault zone, large displacements may have catastrophic effects on a structure located directly astride the fault.

Soil Liquefaction. Soil liquefaction is a phenomenon in which a loose 

granular soil deposit below the ground water table may lose a substantial amount of strength due to earthquake ground shaking. There are 

many potential adverse consequences of liquefaction, including small 

building settlements, larger settlements associated with reduction of 

foundation bearing strength, and large lateral ground displacements 

that would tend to shear a building apart. An often cited soil liquefaction failure is shown in Figure 3-9.

Soil Differential Compaction. If a site is underlain by loose natural soil 

deposits, or uncompacted or poorly compacted fill, earthquake ground 

shaking may cause the soil to be compacted and settle, and differential 

settlements may occur due to spatial variations in soil properties.

Figure 3-8 Example of surface fault rupture; 1971 San Fernando, 

California, earthquake (a thrust fault earthquake). (Photo courtesy of the Earthquake Engineering Research Institute.)
3-10 IDENTIFYING AND ASSESSING EARTHQUAKE- RELATED HAZARDS

Landsliding. Hillside and sloped sites may be susceptible to seismicallyinduced landslides. Landslides during earthquakes occur due to horizontal seismic inertia forces induced in the slopes by the ground shaking. Buildings located on slopes, or above or below slopes but close to 

either the top or the toe of the slope, could be affected by landslides. 

Landslides having large displacements have devastating effects on a 

building. An example of a building damaged by a landslide is shown in 

Figure 3-10.

Inundation. Earthquake-induced flooding at a site can be caused by tsunami (coastal waves caused by some large offshore earthquakes), seiche 

(waves in bounded bodies of water caused by ground motion), landslides within or entering bodies of water, and the failure of dams. Such 

hazards are uncommon but need to be considered because of the 

potentially devastating consequences for sites located in inundated 

areas. The tilting of a structure caused by tsunami is shown in 

Figure 3-11.

3.4 OTHER COLLATERAL HAZARDS

In addition to the seismic shaking hazards described in Section 3.2 and 

the collateral seismic hazards described in Section 3.3, there are other 

Figure 3-9 Aerial view of leaning apartment houses resulting from soil 

liquefaction and the behavior of liquefiable soil foundations, 

Niigata, Japan, earthquake of June 16, 1964. (Photo courtesy 

of National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National 

Data Service).
IDENTIFYING AND ASSESSING EARTHQUAKE- RELATED HAZARDS 3-11

Figure 3-10 Government Hill School, Anchorage, destroyed by landslide 

during the magnitude-8.4 Alaska earthquake of 1964. (Photo 

courtesy of National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 

National Data Service). 

Figure 3-11 Overturned lighthouse at Aonae, Okushiri, from the tsunami 

following the 1993 Hokkaido-Nansei-Oki earthquake. (Photo 

courtesy of Yuji Ishiyama, Hokkaido University, Sapporo, Japan)
3-12 IDENTIFYING AND ASSESSING EARTHQUAKE- RELATED HAZARDS

hazards that are indirectly related to earthquake events. In general, 

these hazards relate to conditions external to the building site that 

affect the postearthquake situation, but are outside the control of the 

building owner and the site selection team. These include: 

(1) hazards such as vulnerable lifelines (transportation, communication, and utility networks) and hazardous adjacent 

structures, including buildings close enough to pound 

against the building that is to be constructed at the site; (2) 

the storage and distribution of hazardous materials, and (3) 

postearthquake fires. These other collateral hazards and 

their potential impacts are described below.

Vulnerable Lifeline Systems. Earthquake damaged lifeline systems 

(transportation, communication, and utility networks) may impede the 

provision of necessary utility functions, or access to the building site in 

the postearthquake aftermath. Such eventualities are largely outside 

the control of building designers and managers. The loss of potable 

water as a result of damage to water storage and distribution systems 

would make most facilities unusable, as would loss of power due to damage to electric power generation facilities and electric power regional 

and local distribution lines. Access to certain facilities, such as hospitals, can also be problematic, as for example, in the case of a hospital 

that is otherwise operable but is inaccessible because of damage to 

access highways and bridges. 

There are numerous examples of transportation lifeline failures during 

earthquakes and the consequent disruption to facility access. These 

include freeway bridges damaged during the 1989 Loma Prieta earthquake near San Francisco, and freeway bridges damaged during the 

1971 San Fernando and 1994 Northridge earthquakes near Los Angeles. One of the most serious lifeline losses in recent years was the collapse of an upper-deck span on the Oakland-San Francisco Bay bridge 

during the Loma Prieta earthquake, which resulted in the closure of the 

bridge for one month for damage repair. This closure impacted the 

economy on both sides of the San Francisco Bay, because the 250,000 

daily users of the bridge had to find alternative routes or postpone the 

transportation of goods and services, commuting to work, and traveling 

for other purposes, such as to schools, medical facilities, shopping centers, and other business operations. 

Pounding and Hazardous Adjacent Structures. In dense urban settings, 

there exists the potential for closely spaced buildings to pound against 

each other (Figure 3-12). Pounding occurs when buildings with differEarthquake-related hazards also include nearby 

vulnerable lifelines, hazardous adjacent structures, 

improperly stored hazardous materials, and 

postearthquake fires.
IDENTIFYING AND ASSESSING EARTHQUAKE- RELATED HAZARDS 3-13

ent dynamic response characteristics, which are governed by building 

stiffness (period of vibration), floor height, and number of stories, 

vibrate or sway out of sync when subjected to ground shaking. The 

potential for pounding is most acute when the story heights of adjacent 

buildings are dissimilar. Pounding has caused severe damage 

and even collapse in urban earthquakes, such as during the 

magnitude-8.1 earthquake that affected Mexico City in 1985. 

Although building codes call attention to this problem, 

building designers are often reluctant to provide the necessary space between buildings to eliminate the problem, principally because the required space would reduce available 

square footage in the building being developed. Consequently, adequate seismic gaps between buildings are seldom implemented in 

densely populated urban areas of seismically hazardous regions of the 

United States. In Japan, even with the acute shortage of space in its 

largest cities, the problem is taken seriously, with new buildings seldom 

built closer than a meter or so from adjacent structures. In suburban or 

campus-type site planning in which building sites tend to be much 

larger, the problem seldom arises.

Figure 3-12 Photo showing damage caused by the pounding of a 10-story 

steel-frame building (with masonry infill walls) against a sevenstory building. Most of the cracking damage to the piers of the 

taller building was at the roof line of the shorter building

(Most of the cracking damage to the piers of the taller building 

was at the roof line of the shorter building. ATC-20 Training 

Slide Set photo)

PIERS CRACKED 

FROM POUNDING 

AT LEVEL OF 

ADJACENT ROOF

Building designers are often reluctant to provide the 

necessary space between buildings to eliminate 

pounding, principally because the required space would 

reduce available square footage in the building being 

developed.
3-14 IDENTIFYING AND ASSESSING EARTHQUAKE- RELATED HAZARDS

Closely spaced buildings in dense urban environments are also subjected to the failure of hazardous adjacent buildings or building components. The problem is most acute if there is an older adjacent building, 

built to less stringent seismic codes, that is taller than the new building 

being constructed. Designers should carefully assess neighboring structures and design against possible falling objects from them (e.g., unreinforced parapets, walls, or chimneys). In the 1989 Loma Prieta 

earthquake, several fatalities were caused when a large portion of an 

unreinforced masonry building collapsed onto the roof of a lower 

adjoining building. A typical failure is shown in Figure 3-13.

Storage and Distribution of Hazardous Materials. Hazardous materials, 

such as stored toxic chemicals in industrial buildings, laboratories, and 

other facilities, can be extremely dangerous to building occupants and 

neighboring facilities if released during an earthquake due to the fall 

and failure of containment vessels. The release of natural or liquefied 

petroleum gas from earthquake damaged storage or pipeline distribution systems can also be potentially hazardous, not only from the toxic 

standpoint but because of the potential for postearthquake fires (see 

below). 

Postearthquake Fires. Historically, fires have been one of the most common and damaging hazards associated with earthquakes. Extensive fire 

damage occurred following the San Francisco earthquake of 1906, and 

the destruction and life loss in 1923 in Tokyo were largely the result of 

postearthquake fires (Figure 3-14). More recently, entire neighborhoods were destroyed by fire after the 1995 earthquake in Kobe, Japan. 

The potential for postearthquake fires depends on the number and 

proximity of ignition sources, the availability of fuel, and the fire-fighting capability, which relates to available manpower, available fire-fighting equipment, and available water for fighting fires. Building codes in 

the United States have extensive provisions ensuring that the materials 

of construction reduce the fuel content of buildings and that building 

planning and construction, including the provision of space around 

buildings for vehicular access and for fire-fighting equipment, provides 

for the safety of occupants. Modern construction codes have significantly reduced the risk for steel and reinforced concrete buildings, but 

wood-frame construction, the most dominate type of construction in 

the United States, remains extremely vulnerable to postearthquake fires 

because of the flammability of the material. Sources of ignition include 

overturned gas water heaters and earthquake damaged gas distribution 

pipelines, which often occurs during moderate and large earthquakes, 
IDENTIFYING AND ASSESSING EARTHQUAKE- RELATED HAZARDS 3-15

together with sparks or fires from damaged electrical distribution lines 

and other sources. The earthquake aftermath may result in special 

impediments to fire-fighting that do not exist in the ordinary course of 

events, including wide-spread and multiple fires, damage to fire stations 

and equipment, injuries to personnel, impeded access to the building 

sites, and failures in the water supply system.

Figure 3-13 Photo showing fallen parapets from an earthquake-damaged 

unreinforced masonry building. (ATC-20 Training Slide Set photo)
3-16 IDENTIFYING AND ASSESSING EARTHQUAKE- RELATED HAZARDS

3.5 GUIDANCE FOR ASSESSING EARTHQUAKERELATED HAZARDS

The design team, which consists of the architect, structural engineer, 

geotechnical engineer and possibly others, has the responsibility for 

advising the owner on important earthquake-related hazards, including 

those affecting site selection and those that can be reduced in the 

design and construction process. The owner has final authority on site 

selection, but likely needs advice on earthquake hazard reduction. All 

members of the team have roles to play in determining and mitigating 

earthquake-related hazards for the site. The roles merge and become 

less rigid depending, for example, on the knowledge, experience, 

authority, and confidence of the owner and the individuals on the 

design team.

The assessment of potential earthquake-related hazards should be carried out during the site evaluation process. The evaluation of a site for 

a new building should consider: (a) zoning restrictions and the local 

authority's planning restrictions; (b) regional geology and its associated 

regional seismicity, on a scale that spans, for example, from tens to hundreds of miles, providing information on the regional ground shaking 

hazard, and locations of historically active faults; (c) site soil conditions, 

on a scale that spans, for example, from tens to hundreds of yards, providing information for foundation support and the local ground shakFigure 3-14 Photo showing the burning of the Tokyo Police Station following 

the magnitude-8.3 Tokyo/Kanto earthquake of 1923.
IDENTIFYING AND ASSESSING EARTHQUAKE- RELATED HAZARDS 3-17

ing hazard; (d) the earthquake survivability of service utilities, 

transportation infrastructure, other lifelines, and access for employees; 

and (e) hazards from outside the property boundary, including unfavorable topography (e.g., potential landslides), the potential for inundation due to tsunami or dam failure, neighboring buildings that are so 

close that pounding is a potential hazard, adjacent buildings that have 

potentially hazardous components that may fail and fall on the building, and hazardous building contents. The design team's report to the 

owner should include the impact of the sum of all these evaluations on 

the desired performance level attained by the completed building in 

future earthquakes.

A site evaluation checklist is provided in Figure 3-15. A complete evaluation should address the issues shown in this checklist. This checklist is 

intended to assist in identifying those issues with which the individuals 

on the design team should be familiar, and the areas where further consultant help may be necessary. 

It is clear from the checklist in Figure 3-15 that a geotechnical engineer, 

and other specialists, should participate in evaluation of the following 

seismic-related hazards:

❍ ground shaking hazard;

❍ seismogeologic hazards that could result, for example, in ground 

failure beneath the building; and

❍ collateral on-site and off-site hazards, such as damage to utilities or 

transportation infrastructure that results from ground failure and 

could adversely affect an organization's operations.

Specific guidance on the evaluation of strong ground shaking, the evaluation of collateral seismic hazards, and the evaluation of other collateral hazards follows.

Evaluating the Ground Shaking Hazard

Although ground shaking is the primary hazard affecting building performance at most sites, it is often not explicitly considered in site selection because it does not provide the site with a fatal flaw. That is, the 

cost to design to a higher, or the maximum, ground shaking level would 

generally not cause a site to be rejected outright. Nevertheless, if alternative sites are being considered, it is desirable to have a geotechnical 

engineer evaluate the differences in estimated levels of ground shaking 

among sites because of the potential influence on project costs. The 

level of shaking is influenced by the characteristics of the faults in the 
3-18 IDENTIFYING AND ASSESSING EARTHQUAKE- RELATED HAZARDS

Figure 3-15 Site evaluation check list.
IDENTIFYING AND ASSESSING EARTHQUAKE- RELATED HAZARDS 3-19

site region, the distance of the site from the faults, source-to-site ground 

motion attenuation characteristics, and site soil conditions. Ground 

motion attenuation is, in turn, influenced by the source-to-site geology. 

If alternative sites are located at sufficiently different distances from 

seismic sources in the same region or are located in different regions, 

then expected levels of shaking at the sites may be different even if site 

soil conditions are similar. However, for close sites in the same region, 

the primary factor causing differences in ground shaking 

levels is the local soil condition. Resources such as national 

or state ground shaking maps and site factors, for example 

in the NEHRP Recommended Provisions for Seismic Regulations 

for New Buildings and Other Structures (BSSC, 2001) and the 

International Building Code (ICC, 2000), enable an experienced geotechnical engineer to make an assessment of differences in expected ground shaking levels among sites.

Evaluating Collateral Seismic Hazards

Guidelines for screening and evaluating potential building sites for collateral seismic hazards (surface fault rupture, soil liquefaction, soil differential compaction, landslide, and 

inundation) are presented in a number of publications 

including the FEMA 273 report, NEHRP Guidelines for the 

Seismic Rehabilitation of Buildings (ATC/BSSC, 1997a), the 

companion FEMA 274 report, Commentary on the NEHRP 

Guidelines for the Seismic Rehabilitation of Buildings (ATC/

BSSC, 1997b), the FEMA 356 report, Prestandard and Commentary for the Seismic Rehabilitation of Buildings (ASCE, 2000) 

and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers publication TI809-04 

for the seismic design of buildings (USACE, 1998). 

Surface Fault Rupture. Generally, it is not feasible to design a building 

to withstand large fault displacements. Sites transected by active faults 

should generally be avoided unless the probability of faulting during 

the building life is sufficiently low.

Soil Liquefaction. The assessment of the vulnerability of a site to soil 

liquefaction must address the hazard severity, the potential effects on 

the building and utility connections, and any need for design measures 

to mitigate the hazard. The hazard consequences may range from 

essentially no adverse effects and no increase in development costs to 

catastrophic effects that cannot be economically mitigated.

Ground Shaking Maps and Site Factors

1. The NEHRP Recommended Provisions for Seismic 

Regulations for New Buildings and Other Structures

(BSSC, 2001)

2. The International Building Code (ICC, 2000)

Evaluating Collateral Seismic Hazards

1. The FEMA 273 report, NEHRP Guidelines for the Seismic 

Rehabilitation of Buildings (ATC/BSSC, 1997a), 

2. The FEMA 274 report, Commentary on the NEHRP 

Guidelines for the Seismic Rehabilitation of Buildings

(ATC/BSSC, 1997b), 

3. The FEMA 356 report, Prestandard and Commentary 

for the Seismic Rehabilitation of Buildings (ASCE, 2000)

4. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers publication TI809-04 

for the seismic design of buildings (USACE, 1998). 
3-20 IDENTIFYING AND ASSESSING EARTHQUAKE- RELATED HAZARDS

Soil Differential Compaction. In general, seismically-induced soil differential settlements will not be large enough to have a major effect on 

site development or building design costs. Unusual sites may contain 

thick layers of uncompacted or poorly compacted fill, where seismic 

(and static) differential settlements could be large and difficult to predict. Even for such sites, building settlements can be minimized, for 

example, by using deep pile foundations extending below the fill.

Landsliding. During site selection, the focus should be on identifying 

unstable or marginally stable hillside slopes that could experience large 

landslide displacements and require significant cost to mitigate. Slopes 

having pre-existing active or ancient landslides are especially susceptible to landsliding during future earthquakes.

Inundation. During site selection, earthquake-induced flooding should 

be considered, recognizing that tsunami, seiche, landslides 

within or entering bodies of water, and the failure of dams 

are uncommon. Such hazards may exist in coastal areas, 

near large bodies of water, and in the region downstream 

from large dams. Guidance on tsunami run-up elevations is 

available in publications such as the U.S. Geological Survey 

Professional Paper 1360. Guidance on the potential for 

landslides within or entering bodies of water should be obtained from a 

geotechnical engineer. Locations of large dams and the potentially 

affected downstream area should dam failure occur are typically available from dam regulatory agencies.

Evaluating Other Collateral Hazards

The existence of other collateral hazards that emanate from outside the 

property boundary, such as neighboring buildings that are so close that 

pounding is a potential hazard, adjacent buildings that have potentially 

hazardous components that may fail and fall on the building, and hazardous building contents, should be identified as part of a site selection 

study if alternative sites are under consideration, and the hazards are 

evaluated in terms of both the probability of occurrence within a certain period and their consequences. Possible collateral hazards related 

to a selected site should be identified and procedures for their mitigation should form part of the postearthquake building emergency 

response plan.

In particular, building owners and the design team responsible for site 

selection should be familiar with hazardous materials stored and used 

on the building site, as well as the potential for storage in nearby faciliTsunami Run-Up

Ziony, J.I., Editor, 1985, Evaluating Earthquake Hazards in 

the Los Angeles Region—An Earth-Science Perspective, 

U.S. Geological Survey, Professional Paper 1360.
IDENTIFYING AND ASSESSING EARTHQUAKE- RELATED HAZARDS 3-21

ties. Planning for the release of hazardous materials is essential if investigation shows that the building site is vulnerable to such hazards. 

Similarly, building owners and the design team responsible for site 

selection should consider the potential for damage caused by adjacent 

structures, either by pounding or the collapse of nearby hazardous 

buildings or their components. 

The means for reducing lifeline system seismic hazards, which could 

result in the failure of transportation and utility systems as well as the 

means for reducing the potential for regional fires following earthquakes, are generally outside the control of the building owner and 

design team.

3.6 REFERENCES AND FURTHER READING

The following publications are suggested resources for further information.

Guidelines, Pre-Standards, and Codes with Information on 

Evaluating Ground Shaking and Collateral Hazards

ASCE, 2000, Prestandard and Commentary for the Seismic Rehabilitation of 

Buildings, prepared by the American Society of Civil Engineers; published by the Federal Emergency Management Agency, FEMA 356 

Report, Washington, DC.

ATC/BSSC, 1997a, NEHRP Guidelines for the Seismic Rehabilitation of Buildings, prepared by the Applied Technology Council (ATC-33 project) for 

the Building Seismic Safety Council; published by the Federal Emergency Management Agency, FEMA 273 Report, Washington, DC.

ATC/BSSC, 1997b, Commentary on the NEHRP Guidelines for the Seismic 

Rehabilitation of Buildings, prepared by the Applied Technology Council 

(ATC-33 project) for the Building Seismic Safety Council; published by 

the Federal Emergency Management Agency, FEMA 274 Report, Washington, DC.

BSSC, 2001, The 2000 NEHRP Recommended Provisions For New Buildings 

And Other Structures, Part I, Provisions and Part 2, Commentary, prepared 

by the Building Seismic Safety Council, published by the Federal Emergency Management Agency, FEMA 368 Report, Washington, DC.

ICC, 2000, International Building Code, International Code Council, Falls 

Church, VA.
3-22 IDENTIFYING AND ASSESSING EARTHQUAKE- RELATED HAZARDS

USACE, 1998, Seismic Design of Buildings, TI-809-04, U.S. Army Corps of 

Engineers, Washington, DC.

Earthquake Reconnaissance Reports (All Published by the 

Earthquake Engineering Research Institute: www.eeri.org)

Benuska, L., Ed., 1990, Loma Prieta Earthquake of October 17, 1989: Reconnaissance Report, Supplement to Earthquake Spectra Volume 6, 450 pp.

Comartin, C.D., Ed., 1995, The Guam Earthquake of August 8, 1993: Reconnaissance Report, Supplement to Earthquake Spectra Volume 11, 175 pp.

Comartin, C.D., Greene, M., and Tubbesing, S.K., Eds., 1995, The Hyogoken Nanbu Earthquake, January 17,1995: Preliminary Reconnaissance Report, 

116 pp.

Chung, R. Ed., 1995, Hokkaido-nansei-oki, Japan, Earthquake of July 12, 

1993: Reconnaissance Report, Supplement to Earthquake Spectra Volume 

11, 166 pp.

Cole, E.E. and Shea, G.H., Eds., 1991, Costa Rica Earthquake of April 22, 

1991: Reconnaissance Report, Special Supplement B to Earthquake Spectra

Volume 7, 170 pp.

EERI, 1985, Impressions of the Guerrero-Michoacan, Mexico, Earthquake of 19 

September 1985: A Preliminary Reconnaissance Report, Published in cooperation with the National Research Council of the National Academy of 

Sciences, 36 pp.

Hall, J., Ed., 1995, Northridge Earthquake of January 17, 1994: Reconnaissance Report, Vol. I, Supplement to Earthquake Spectra Volume 11, 523 pp.

Hall, J., Ed., 1996, Northridge Earthquake of January 17, 1994: Reconnaissance Report, Vol. II, 280 pp. 

Malley, J.O., Shea, G.H., and Gulkan, P. Eds., 1993, Erzincan, Turkey, 

Earthquake of March 13, 1992: Reconnaissance Report, Supplement to Earthquake Spectra Volume 9, 210 pp.

Schiff, A.J., Ed., 1991, Philippines Earthquake of July 16, 1990: Reconnaissance Report, Special Supplement A to Earthquake Spectra Volume 7, 150 

pp.

Wyllie, L.A. and Filson, J.R., Eds., 1989, Armenia Earthquake of December 7, 

1988: Reconnaissance Report, Supplement to Earthquake Spectra Volume 5, 

175 pp.
PERFORMANCE-BASED ENGINEERING: AN EMERGING CONCEPT IN SEISMIC DESIGN 4-1

PERFORMANCE-BASED ENGINEERING:

AN EMERGING CONCEPT IN SEISMIC DESIGN 4

Performance-based seismic design, the focus of this chapter, is a relatively new concept that reflects a natural evolution in engineering 

design practice. It is based on investigations of building performance 

in past earthquakes and laboratory research, and is enabled by improvements in analytical tools and computational capabilities. Performancebased seismic design concepts have been made possible by the collective 

intellect of an interested profession and significant financial resources 

provided in large part by the federally funded National Earthquake 

Hazards Reduction Program. 

To introduce the subject, we begin with a description of the process by 

which seismic codes are developed and implemented (Section 4.1), followed by a discussion of the expected performance of new buildings 

designed in accordance with current seismic codes (Section 4.2). Interestingly enough, as discussed in Section 4.3, currently applied concepts 

in performance-based seismic design were developed for the rehabilitation of existing buildings, as opposed to the design of new buildings. 

These concepts, however, apply equally well to new buildings, and 

model codes for new building seismic design are beginning to adopt 

and adapt the performance-based concepts created for seismic rehabilitation of existing buildings. As described in Section 4.4, work is also 

underway to develop next-generation performance-based seismic 

design guidelines for new and existing buildings. 

4.1 SEISMIC DESIGN PROVISIONS IN BUILDING 

CODES 

Building design codes for cities, states, or other jurisdictions throughout the United States are typically based on the adoption and occasional 

modification of a model building code. Up until the mid-1990s, there 

were three primary model building code organizations: Building Officials and Code Administrators International, Inc. (BOCA), International Conference of Building Officials (ICBO), and Southern Building 

Code Congress International, Inc. (SBCCI). In 1994, these three organizations united to found the International Code Council (ICC), a nonprofit organization dedicated to developing a single set of comprehensive and coordinated national model construction codes. The first code 

published by ICC was the 2000 International Building Code (IBC; ICC, 

2000). 
4-2 PERFORMANCE-BASED ENGINEERING: AN EMERGING CONCEPT IN SEISMIC DESIGN

Building code adoption is a complicated process, especially in regions 

with significant exposure to natural hazards such as earthquake, wind, 

or flood. In some earthquake-prone regions of the United States, the 

seismic design provisions outlined in the 2000 IBC have not been 

adopted. Instead, the provisions of the Uniform Building Code (UBC), 

the model building code published by IBCO from 1949 through 1997 

(ICBO, 1997), are still used. The seismic provisions in the UBC are 

based primarily on the provisions contained in the Structural Engineers 

Association of California (SEAOC) Recommended Lateral Force Requirements and Commentary, known as the Blue Book and published from 1959 

through 1999 (SEAOC, 1999). In addition, the 1997 UBC relies on the 

provisions contained in the 1994 edition of the NEHRP Recommended 

Provisions for Seismic Regulations for New Buildings (BSSC, 1995), while the 

2000 IBC relies on the more recent 1997 edition of the NEHRP Recommended Provisions for Seismic Regulations for New Buildings and Other Structures (BSSC, 1998). 

The NEHRP Provisions have been published regularly since the National 

Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program (NEHRP) was created in 1978 

as a response to Congress passing P.L. 95-124, the Earthquake Hazards 

Reduction Act of 1977. The Federal Emergency Management Agency 

(FEMA) was mandated to implement P.L. 95-124 and NEHRP, and the 

Building Seismic Safety Council (BSSC) was formed to provide a broad 

consensus mechanism for regularly updating the NEHRP Recommended 

Provisions for Seismic Regulations for New Buildings (hereinafter referred to 

as the NEHRP Recommended Provisions), first published in 1978 by the 

Applied Technology Council as Tentative Provisions for the Development of 

Seismic Regulations for Buildings, (ATC-03 Report; ATC, 1978). The most 

recent version of the NEHRP Recommended Provisions is the 2000 edition 

(BSSC, 2001) and a 2003 edition is currently in development, as discussed later in this chapter.

The remainder of this chapter explores seismic design issues related to 

current building codes, specifically the intent of current codes with 

respect to the performance of structural and nonstructural building systems. The current codes include the 2000 IBC and the 1997 UBC (and 

the NEHRP Recommended Provisions and SEAOC Blue Book on which they 

rely), as these are most commonly used, although it should be noted 

that a few jurisdictions have adopted the recently published National 

Fire Protection Agency (NFPA) 5000 Building Construction and Safety 

Code (NFPA, 2003) in conjunction with the American Society of Civil 

Engineers (ASCE, 2002) ASCE 7-02 publication, Minimum Design Loads 

for Buildings and Other Structures, for earthquake loading requirements. 
PERFORMANCE-BASED ENGINEERING: AN EMERGING CONCEPT IN SEISMIC DESIGN 4-3

Performance-based engineering, an emerging design tool for managing 

seismic risk, and the impact that the emergence of performance-based 

design strategies will have on future buildings and their seismic performance, discussed later in this chapter.

4.2 EXPECTED PERFORMANCE WHEN DESIGNING 

TO CURRENT CODES 

The basic intent of current seismic design provisions is best summarized 

by the SEAOC Recommended Lateral Force Requirements and Commentary

(SEAOC, 1999), which states:

These Requirements provide minimum standards for use in building design regulation to maintain public safety in the extreme 

ground shaking likely to occur during an earthquake. These 

Requirements are primarily intended to safeguard against major 

failures and loss of life, not to limit damage, maintain 

functions, or provide for easy repair.

In other words, current seismic design codes are essentially 

aimed at the preservation of life and safety for the benefit 

of the community. The recommended provisions express 

expectations and provide no guarantees; they assume that 

there may be damage to a building as a result of an earthquake. For 

example, the SEAOC Recommended Lateral Force Requirements and Commentary includes a general set of performance statements to qualify the 

nature of expected damage, as follows:

Structures designed in accordance with these recommendations 

should, in general, be able to:

❍ Resist a minor level of earthquake ground motion without damage

❍ Resist a moderate level of earthquake ground motion without 

structural damage, but possibly experience some nonstructural 

damage. 

❍ Resist a major level of earthquake ground motion having an 

intensity equal to the strongest either experienced or forecast 

for the building site without collapse, but possibly with some 

structural as well as nonstructural damage.

It is expected that structural damage, even in a major design level 

earthquake, will be limited to a repairable level for most structures 

that meet these Requirements. In some instances, damage may not 

be economical to repair. The level of damage depends upon a 

Current seismic design codes are essentially aimed at the 

preservation of life and safety for the benefit of the 

community.
4-4 PERFORMANCE-BASED ENGINEERING: AN EMERGING CONCEPT IN SEISMIC DESIGN

number of factors, including the intensity and duration of ground 

shaking, structure configuration, type of lateral force resisting system, materials used in the construction, and construction workmanship. 

Designers use codes as a resource, as they provide minimum acceptable consensus standards. Codes provide no 

guidance on the selection of materials and systems, rather 

only criteria for their use once selected. Codes also do not 

provide the designer with the difference in performance 

between systems; for example, the difference between the stiffness of 

shear walls and frames and the importance of this characteristic for the 

overall seismic performance of the building. Lastly, codes do not discuss that the use of some structural systems will result in more nonstructural damage than others, even though the structural systems perform 

equally well in resisting the earthquake forces. The following sub-sections describe the expected performance of structural and nonstructural components, respectively.

Expected Performance of Structural Components

As mentioned earlier, current seismic design provisions for 

non-essential facilities are intended to provide life safety, 

i.e., no damage in a minor earthquake, limited structural 

damage in a moderate earthquake, and resistance to collapse in a major earthquake (typically the design ground 

motion). Resistance to collapse means that the structure 

may have lost a substantial amount of its original lateral 

stiffness and strength, but the gravity-load-bearing elements 

still function and provide some margin of safety against collapse. The structure may have permanent lateral offset and 

some elements of the seismic-force resisting system may exhibit substantial cracking, spalling, yielding, buckling, and localized failure. Following a major earthquake, the structure is not safe for continued 

occupancy until repairs are done. Shaking associated with strong aftershocks could threaten the stability of the structure. Repair to a structure in this state is expected to be feasible, however it may not be 

economically attractive to do so. Section 4.3 includes further discussion 

of the seismic behavior of specific structural systems in the context of 

describing performance-based design objectives. 

Current seismic design provisions for non-essential facilities 

are intended to provide resistance to collapse in a major 

earthquake (typically the design ground motion). 

Resistance to collapse means that the structure may have 

lost a substantial amount of its original lateral stiffness 

and strength, but the gravity-load-bearing elements still 

function and provide some margin of safety against 

collapse.

Codes do not provide the designer with the difference in 

performance between different structural systems.
PERFORMANCE-BASED ENGINEERING: AN EMERGING CONCEPT IN SEISMIC DESIGN 4-5

Expected Performance of Nonstructural Components

While current seismic design provisions provide minimum structural 

performance standards in terms of resistance to collapse, they typically 

do not address performance of nonstructural components, such as 

room partitions, filing cabinets and book cases, hung lighting and ceilings, entryway canopies, and stairwells; nor do they address performance of mechanical, electrical, or plumbing systems including fire 

sprinklers, heating and air conditioning equipment or ductwork, and 

electrical panels or transformers. The vast majority of damage and resulting loss of building functionality during 

recent damaging earthquakes has been the result of damage to nonstructural components and systems (Figure 4-1). 

Many building owners have been surprised when a building 

withstands the effects of a moderate earthquake from a 

structural perspective, but is still rendered inoperable from a nonstructural standpoint.

Current seismic design provisions typically require that nonstructural 

components be secured so as to not present a falling hazard; however, 

these components can still be severely damaged such that they can not 

function. Loss of electric power, breaks in water supply and sewer outFigure 4-1 Photo of lights set into a fixed ceiling system that shook loose 

during an earthquake and are hanging from their conduits. 

(ATC-20 Training Slide Set photo)

While current seismic design provisions provide minimum 

structural performance standards in terms of resistance to 

collapse, they typically do not address performance of 

nonstructural components.
4-6 PERFORMANCE-BASED ENGINEERING: AN EMERGING CONCEPT IN SEISMIC DESIGN

flow lines (see Figure 4-2), or non-functioning heating or air conditioning will render a building unusable by tenants. Breaks in fire sprinklers 

will cause flooding within all or part of a building, soaked carpets and 

walls, inundated files and records, and electrical shorts or failures in 

electrical equipment and computers. Other examples of nonstructural 

damage that can be expected in a code-compliant building subjected to 

strong ground shaking include extensive cracking in cladding, glazing, 

partitions, and chimneys; broken light fixtures; racked doors; and 

dropped ceiling tiles. Section 4.3 includes further discussion of the seismic behavior of specific nonstructural systems in the context of describing performance-based design objectives. 

4.3 CURRENT SPECIFICATIONS FOR 

PERFORMANCE-BASED SEISMIC DESIGN

As described earlier, an important yet emerging concept in the successful implementation of seismic risk management strategies is 

the application of performance-based seismic design 

approaches. The primary function of performance-based 

seismic design is the ability to achieve, through analytical 

means, a building design that will reliably perform in a prescribed manner under one or more seismic hazard condiFigure 4-2 Photo of pipe flange failure caused by earthquake lateral 

forces. (ATC-20 Training Slide Set photo)

The primary function of performance-based seismic design 

is the ability to achieve, through analytical means, a 

building design that will reliably perform in a prescribed 

manner under one or more seismic hazard conditions. 
PERFORMANCE-BASED ENGINEERING: AN EMERGING CONCEPT IN SEISMIC DESIGN 4-7

tions. The fact that alternative levels of building performance are being 

defined and can be chosen as performance objectives is a relatively new 

development in seismic design. Some of its origins lie in studies of 

building performance during recent earthquakes, in which owners of 

buildings that suffered hundreds of thousands of dollars in damage 

were surprised to learn that the buildings met the intent of the lifesafety provisions of the seismic code under which they were designed, 

since no one was killed or seriously injured. Out of these experiences 

came the realization that design professionals need to be more explicit 

about what “design to code” represents and what seismic design in general can and can not accomplish. At the same time, studies of damaged 

buildings, together with laboratory research and computer analyses, 

have led to a much more sophisticated understanding of building 

response under the range of earthquake ground motion that can be 

expected to occur.

This section describes some of the key concepts of performance-based 

seismic design. These concepts have emerged from a series of studies, 

funded by FEMA, that focused on the development of performancebased seismic design guidelines for existing buildings. The first study, 

published in the FEMA 237 report, Seismic Rehabilitation of Buildings – 

Phase I: Issues Identification and Resolution (ATC, 1992), identified and 

resolved a wide variety of scope, format, socio-economic, and detailed 

technical issues that needed to be considered during the subsequent 

development of practical guidelines for the seismic rehabilitation of 

buildings. During that initial study, the concept of performance goals 

was introduced, effectively commencing the move toward performancebased seismic design. The follow-on study, an $8-million FEMA-funded 

effort carried out jointly by the Applied Technology Council, the Building Seismic Safety Council, and the American Society of Civil Engineers, 

resulted in the formulation of detailed guidelines, written for practicing 

structural engineers and building officials, that specify the means to use 

performance-based design concepts to rehabilitate existing buildings to 

improve their seismic resistance. The final set of products of that effort 

consists of three documents: FEMA 273, NEHRP Guidelines for the Seismic Rehabilitation of Buildings (ATC/BSSC, 1997a); FEMA 274, NEHRP 

Commentary for the Guidelines for Seismic Rehabilitation of Buildings (ATC/

BSSC, 1997b); and FEMA 276, Example Applications of the NEHRP Guidelines for the Seismic Rehabilitation of Buildings (ATC, 1997). In order to 

speed the implementation of the FEMA 273 Guidelines in structural 

engineering practice, the Guidelines were converted, with funding from 

FEMA, to a Prestandard and Commentary for the Seismic Rehabilitation of 

Buildings (FEMA 356) by the American Society of Civil Engineers 
4-8 PERFORMANCE-BASED ENGINEERING: AN EMERGING CONCEPT IN SEISMIC DESIGN

(ASCE, 2000). The conversion process maintained the performance 

levels and performance descriptions, as described below, and other concepts developed for the FEMA 273 Guidelines. 

Midway through the long-term FEMA effort to develop the FEMA 273 

Guidelines and FEMA 356 Prestandard, the Structural Engineers Association of California (SEAOC) developed Vision 2000, Performance Based 

Seismic Engineering of Buildings, which describes a framework for performance based seismic design of new buildings. At about the same time, 

the Applied Technology Council developed the ATC-40 report, Seismic 

Evaluation and Rehabilitation of Concrete Buildings (ATC, 1996b), a 

detailed procedures manual for the seismic evaluation and 

rehabilitation of concrete buildings using performancebased seismic design concepts. All of the documents 

described above are important, state-of-the-art resources 

for the structural engineering community. 

The application of performance-based seismic design can 

be highly technical, and requires that the design engineer 

have a good understanding of seismic hazards, and the 

dynamic and inelastic behavior of buildings and materials. 

Unlike the application of building codes, performancebased seismic design is not typically prescriptive in nature, 

and often requires significantly more detailed building 

analysis than might otherwise be required. However, as discussed earlier, the advantages of performance-based seismic design in the development of an overall risk 

management plan is usually worth the extra effort spent by 

the design team. It is the challenge of the design team to convey this 

level of importance to the owner and the owner’s representatives.

Building Performance Objectives

A fundamental concept behind the implementation of performancebased seismic design is the development of a consensus set of performance objectives. The performance objectives describe the intended 

performance of the building (e.g., in terms of life safety, levels of 

acceptable damage, and post-earthquake functionality) when subjected 

to an earthquake hazard of a defined intensity (e.g., a maximum credible event or an event with a certain return 

period). As earthquake intensity increases, building performance generally decreases. The goal of specifying a performance objective is to achieve a reliable estimate of 

Engineering Applications for 

Performance-Based Seismic Design

❍ ATC-40, Seismic Evaluation and Retrofit of Concrete 

Buildings, Applied Technology Council, 1996b.

❍ FEMA-273, NEHRP Guidelines for the Seismic Rehabilitation of Buildings, (ATC/BSSC, 1997a).

❍ FEMA-274, Commentary on NEHRP Guidelines for 

the Seismic Rehabilitation of Buildings, (ATC/BSSC, 

1997b).

❍ FEMA-356, Prestandard and Commentary for the 

Seismic Rehabilitation of Buildings (ASCE, 2000).

❍ SEAOC, Vision 2000: Performance Based Seismic 

Engineering of Buildings, Structural Engineers Association of California, 1995. 

Building Performance Objective

Intended performance level in combination with a 

specified seismic shaking level.
PERFORMANCE-BASED ENGINEERING: AN EMERGING CONCEPT IN SEISMIC DESIGN 4-9

performance under one or more earthquake hazard scenarios. A representation of different performance objectives is shown in Table 4-1, 

which is taken from FEMA 356 Prestandard and Commentary for Seismic 

Rehabilitation of Buildings ((ASCE, 2000), a prestandard for performancebased seismic rehabilitation of existing buildings. Although FEMA 356 

pertains to seismic rehabilitation, the same concepts apply to new 

design.

As shown in Table 4-1, FEMA 356 defines two basic earthquake hazard 

levels – Basic Safety Earthquake 1 (BSE-1, corresponding to 475-year 

return period event, or ground motions having a 10% probability of 

being exceeded in 50 years) and Basic Safety Earthquake 2 (BSE-2 

corresponding to 2475-year return period event, or ground motions 

having a 2% probability of being exceeded in 50 years). The Basic 

Safety Objective (BSO) is then defined as meeting the target building 

performance level of Life Safety for BSE-1, and the target building performance level of Collapse Prevention for BSE-2 (cells k and p in Table 

4-1). FEMA 356 states, 

The BSO is intended to approximate the earthquake risk to life 

safety traditionally considered acceptable in the United States. 

Table 4-1 Performance Objectives (Adapted from FEMA 356 (ASCE, 2000))

Target Building Performance Levels*

Operational Performance Level (1-A)Immediate Occupancy Performance 

Level (1-B)

Life Safety Performance Level (3-C)Collapse Prevention 

Performance Level 

(5-E)

Earthquake 

Hazard Level

(ground motions 

having a 

specified 

probability of 

being exceeded 

in a 50-year 

period)

50%/50 year a b c d

20%/50 year e f g h

BSE-1

(10%/50 year) ijkl

BSE-2

(2%/50 year) mn o p

*Alpha-numeric identifiers in parentheses defined in Table 4-2

Notes:

1. Each cell in the above matrix represents a discrete Rehabilitation Objective

2. Three specific Rehabilitation Objectives are defined in FEMA 356:

Basic Safety Objective = cells k + p

Enhanced Objectives = cells k + p + any of a, e, i, b, f, j, or n

Limited Objectives = cell k alone, or cell p alone

Limited Objectives = cells c, g, d, h, l
4-10 PERFORMANCE-BASED ENGINEERING: AN EMERGING CONCEPT IN SEISMIC DESIGN

Buildings meeting the BSO are expected to experience little damage from relatively frequent, moderate earthquakes, but significantly more damage and potential economic loss from the most 

severe and infrequent earthquakes that could affect them.

Performance objectives higher than the BSO are defined as Enhanced 

Objectives, which are achieved by designing for target building performance levels greater than those of the BSO at either the BSE-1 or BSE-2 

hazard levels or by designing for the target building performance levels 

of the BSO using an earthquake hazard level that exceeds either the 

BSE-1 or BSE-2 (see Table 4-1 notes). The possible combinations of target building performance and earthquake hazard level corresponding 

to design for an enhanced performance objective are limitless – the 

goal is simply to provide building performance better than that 

intended by the BSO and mandated in most current design codes.

Note also that certain cells of the matrix (Table 4-1) are referred to as 

Limited Objectives. While this lower performance objective may be 

applicable to certain partial or reduced seismic rehabilitation designs, it 

does not apply to new design as it falls below current code standards. 

Building Performance Levels

Building performance can be described qualitatively in terms of the:

❍ safety afforded building occupants, during and after an earthquake.

❍ cost and feasibility of restoring the building to pre-earthquake conditions.

❍ length of time the building is removed from service to conduct 

repairs.

❍ economic, architectural, or historic impacts on the community at 

large.

These performance characteristics will be directly related to the extent 

of damage sustained by the building during a damaging earthquake. As 

shown in Table 4-1, FEMA 356 defines four basic Target Building Performance Levels, which differ only slightly in terminology from the four 

levels described in FEMA 369, The 2000 NEHRP Recommended Provisions 

for New Buildings and Other Structures, Part 2: Commentary (BSSC, 2001). 

These performance levels, illustrated graphically in Figure 4-3, are:

❍ Operational Level: The lowest level of overall damage to the building. The structure will retain nearly all of its pre-earthquake 

strength and stiffness. Expected damage includes minor cracking 
PERFORMANCE-BASED ENGINEERING: AN EMERGING CONCEPT IN SEISMIC DESIGN 4-11

of facades, partitions, and ceilings, as well as structural elements. 

All mechanical, electrical, plumbing, and other systems necessary 

for normal operation of the buildings are expected to be functional, 

possibly from standby sources. Negligible damage to nonstructural 

components is expected. Under very low levels of earthquake 

ground motion, most buildings should be able to meet or exceed 

this performance level. Typically, however, it will not be economically practical to design for this level of performance under severe 

levels of ground shaking, except for buildings that house essential 

services.

❍ Immediate Occupancy Level: Overall damage to the building is 

light. Damage to the structural systems is similar to the Operational 

Performance Level; however, somewhat more damage to nonstructural systems is expected. Nonstructural components such as cladding and ceilings, and mechanical and electrical components 

remain secured; however, repair and cleanup may be needed. It is 

expected that utilities necessary for normal function of all systems 

will not be available, although those necessary for life safety systems 

would be provided. Many building owners may wish to achieve this 

level of performance when the building is subjected to moderate 

levels of earthquake ground motion. In addition, some owners may 

desire such performance for very important buildings, under severe 

levels of earthquake ground shaking. This level provides most of 

the protection obtained under the Operational Building Performance Level, without the associated cost of providing standby utiliFigure 4-3 Graphic illustration of Operational, Immediate Occupancy, Life-Safety, and Collapse Prevention 

Performance Levels. (Courtesy of R. Hamburger)
4-12 PERFORMANCE-BASED ENGINEERING: AN EMERGING CONCEPT IN SEISMIC DESIGN

ties and performing rigorous seismic qualification to validate 

equipment performance.

❍ Life Safety Level: Structural and nonstructural damage is significant. The building may lose a substantial amount of its pre-earthquake lateral strength and stiffness, but the gravity-loadbearing elements function. Out-of-plane wall failures 

and tipping of parapets are not expected, but there will 

be some permanent drift and select elements of the lateral-force resisting system may have substantial cracking, spalling, yielding, and buckling. Nonstructural 

components are secured and not presenting a falling 

hazard, but many architectural, mechanical, and electrical systems 

are damaged. The building may not be safe for continued occupancy until repairs are done. Repair of the structure is feasible, but 

it may not be economically attractive to do so. This performance 

level is generally the basis for the intent of code compliance.

❍ Collapse Prevention Level or Near Collapse Level: The structure 

sustains severe damage. The lateral-force resisting system loses most 

of its pre-earthquake strength and stiffness. Load-bearing columns 

and walls function, but the building is near collapse. Substantial 

degradation of structural elements occurs, including extensive 

cracking and spalling of masonry and concrete elements, and buckling and fracture of steel elements. Infills and unbraced parapets 

may fail and exits may be blocked. The building has large permanent drifts. Nonstructural components experience substantial damage and may be falling hazards. The building is unsafe for 

occupancy. Repair and restoration is probably not practically 

achievable. This building performance level has been selected as 

the basis for mandatory seismic rehabilitation ordinances enacted 

by some municipalities, as it results in mitigation of the most severe 

life-safety hazards at relatively low cost.

Building performance levels typically comprise a structural performance level that describes the limiting damage state of the structural 

systems, plus a nonstructural performance level that describes the limiting damage state of the nonstructural systems and components. Table 

4-2, from FEMA 356, illustrates this concept. A Target Building Performance Level is designated by the number corresponding to the Structural Performance Level (identified as S-1 through S-6) and the letter 

corresponding to the Nonstructural Performance Level (identified as 

N-A through N-E). Note that in Tables 4-1 and 4-2, the four Target 

Building Performance Levels discussed above are each designated as 

follows. 

Buildings designed to meet the life safety performance 

level may not be safe for continued occupancy (after the 

occurrence of a design level earthquake) until repairs are 

done.
PERFORMANCE-BASED ENGINEERING: AN EMERGING CONCEPT IN SEISMIC DESIGN 4-13

❍ Operational Level (1-A): Immediate Occupancy Structural Performance Level (S-1) plus Operational Nonstructural Performance 

Level (N-A).

❍ Immediate Occupancy Level (1-B): Immediate Occupancy Structural Performance Level (S-1) plus Immediate Occupancy Nonstructural Performance Level (N-B).

❍ Life Safety Level (3-C): Life Safety Structural Performance Level (S3) plus Life Safety Nonstructural Performance Level (N-C).

❍ Collapse Prevention Level (5-E): Collapse Prevention Structural 

Performance Level (S-5) plus Not Considered Nonstructural Performance Level (N-E).

Note also that in Table 4-2, there are several combinations of structural 

and nonstructural performance levels that are not recommended for 

rehabilitation; the same lack of recommendation applies to new design. 

The six structural performance levels and five nonstructural performance levels are described in the following subsections. 

Structural Performance Levels

For the rehabilitation of existing buildings, the Structural Performance 

Levels most commonly used are the Immediate Occupancy Level, the 

Table 4-2 Target Building Performance Levels and Ranges (ASCE, 2000)

Nonstructural 

Performance Levels

Structural Performance Levels and Ranges

S-1

Immediate 

Occupancy

S-2

Damage Control 

Range

S-3

Life Safety

S-4

Limited Safety 

Range

S-5

Collapse 

Prevention

S-6

Not Considered

N-A

Operational

Operational (1-A) 2-A NR1 NR1 NR1 NR1

N-B

Immediate Occupancy

Immediate 

Occupancy 

(1-B)

2-B 3-B NR1 NR1 NR1

N-C

Life Safety

1-C 2-C Life Safety

(3-C)

4-C 5-C 6-C

N-D

Hazards Reduced

NR1 2-D 3-D 4-D 5-D 6-D

N-E

Not Considered

NR1 NR1 NR1 4-E Collapse 

Prevention

(5-E)

NR1

Notes:

1. NR = Not Recommended
4-14 PERFORMANCE-BASED ENGINEERING: AN EMERGING CONCEPT IN SEISMIC DESIGN

Life Safety Level, and the Collapse Prevention Level (S-1, S-3, and S-5, 

respectively, in Table 4-2). These levels are discrete points on a continuous scale describing the building’s expected performance or, alternatively, how much damage, economic loss, and disruption may occur 

following the design earthquake. Intermediate levels are often used to 

assist in quantifying the continuous scale. For example, Table 4-2 lists 

Structural Performance Levels of Damage Control Range (S-2), Limited 

Safety Range (S-4), and Not Considered (S-6). 

Structural Performance Levels relate to the limiting damage states for 

common elements of the building’s lateral force resisting systems. Table 

4-3 and Table 4-4, taken from FEMA 356, provide descriptions of the 

damage associated with the three Structural Performance Levels of Collapse Prevention, Life Safety, and Immediate Occupancy for specific 

types of horizontal (Table 4-3) and vertical (Table 4-4) structural elements and systems. 

Nonstructural Performance Levels

The four Nonstructural Performance Levels most commonly used are 

the Operational Level, the Immediate Occupancy Level, the Life Safety 

Level, and the Hazards Reduced Level (N-A, N-B, N-C, and N-D, respectively, in Table 4-2). Table 4-2 also includes the additional performance 

level of Not Considered (N-E). Nonstructural components addressed 

Table 4-3 Structural Performance Levels and Damage—Horizontal Elements (From FEMA 356)

Element

Performance Levels

Collapse Prevention Life Safety Immediate Occupancy 

Metal Deck Diaphragms

Large distortion with buckling of 

some units and tearing of many 

welds and seam attachments.

Some localized failure of welded connections of deck to framing and 

between panels. Minor local buckling 

of deck.

Connections between deck units and 

framing intact. Minor distortions.

Wood Diaphragms

Large permanent distortion with partial withdrawal of nails and extensive 

splitting of elements.

Some splitting at connections. Loosening of sheathing. Observable withdrawal of fasteners. Splitting of 

framing and sheathing.

No observable loosening or withdrawal of fasteners. No splitting of 

sheathing or framing.

Concrete Diaphragms

Extensive crushing and observable 

offset across many cracks.

Extensive cracking (< 1/4" width). 

Local crushing and spalling.

Distributed hairline cracking. Some 

minor cracks of larger size (< 1/8” 

width).

Precast Diaphragms

Connections between units fail. Units 

shift relative to each other. Crushing 

and spalling at joints.

Extensive cracking (< 1/4” width). 

Local crushing and spalling.

Some minor cracking along joints.
PERFORMANCE-BASED ENGINEERING: AN EMERGING CONCEPT IN SEISMIC DESIGN 4-15

Table 4-4 Structural Performance Levels and Damage1—Vertical Elements (from FEMA 356)

Elements Type

Structural Performance Levels

Collapse Prevention Life Safety Immediate Occupancy

Concrete Frames

Primary Extensive cracking and hinge formation in ductile elements. Limited cracking and/or splice 

failure in some nonductile columns. Severe damage in short 

columns.

Extensive damage to beams. 

Spalling of cover and shear 

cracking (< 1/8" width) for ductile columns. Minor spalling in 

nonductile columns. Joint cracks 

< 1/8" wide.

Minor hairline cracking. Limited 

yielding possible at a few locations. No crushing (strains below 

0.003).

Secondary Extensive spalling in columns 

(limited shortening) and beams. 

Severe joint damage. Some reinforcing buckled.

Extensive cracking and hinge formation in ductile elements. Limited cracking and/or splice 

failure in some nonductile columns. Severe damage in short 

columns.

Minor spalling in a few places in 

ductile columns and beams. Flexural cracking in beams and columns. Shear cracking in joints < 

1/16" width.

Drift2 4% transient

or permanent

2% transient;

1% permanent

1% transient; 

negligible permanent

Steel Moment 

Frames

Primary Extensive distortion of beams 

and column panels. Many fractures at moment connections, but 

shear connections remain intact.

Hinges form. Local buckling of 

some beam elements. Severe 

joint distortion; isolated moment 

connection fractures, but shear 

connections remain intact. A few 

elements may experience partial 

fracture.

Minor local yielding at a few 

places. No fractures. Minor buckling or observable permanent 

distortion of members.

Secondary Same as primary. Extensive distortion of beams 

and column panels. Many fractures at moment connections, but 

shear connections remain intact.

Same as primary.

Drift2 5% transient 

or permanent

2.5% transient;

1% permanent

0.7% transient; 

negligible permanent

Braced Steel 

Frames

Primary Extensive yielding and buckling 

of braces. Many braces and their 

connections may fail.

Many braces yield or buckle but 

do not totally fail. Many connections may fail.

Minor yielding or buckling of 

braces.

Secondary Same as primary. Same as primary. Same as primary.

Drift2 2% transient

or permanent

1.5% transient; 

0.5% permanent

0.5% transient; 

negligible permanent
4-16 PERFORMANCE-BASED ENGINEERING: AN EMERGING CONCEPT IN SEISMIC DESIGN

Concrete Walls

Primary Major flexural and shear cracks 

and voids. Sliding at joints. 

Extensive crushing and buckling 

of reinforcement. Failure around 

openings. Severe boundary element damage. Coupling beams 

shattered and virtually disintegrated.

Some boundary element distress, 

including limited buckling of 

reinforcement. Some sliding at 

joints. Damage around openings. Some crushing and flexural 

cracking. Coupling beams: extensive shear and flexural cracks; 

some crushing, but concrete generally remains in place.

Minor hairline cracking of walls, 

< 1/16" wide. Coupling beams 

experience cracking 

< 1/8" width.

Secondary Panels shattered and virtually 

disintegrated.

Major flexural and shear cracks. 

Sliding at joints. Extensive crushing. Failure around openings. 

Severe boundary element damage. Coupling beams shattered 

and virtually disintegrated.

Minor hairline cracking of walls. 

Some evidence of sliding at construction joints. Coupling beams 

experience cracks < 1/8" width. 

Minor spalling.

Drift2 2% transient

or permanent

1% transient; 

0.5% permanent

0.5% transient; 

negligible permanent

Unreinforced 

Masonry Infill 

Walls3

Primary Extensive cracking and crushing; 

portions of face course shed.

Extensive cracking and some 

crushing but wall remains in 

place. No falling units. Extensive 

crushing and spalling of veneers 

at corners of openings.

Minor (<1/8" width) cracking of 

masonry infills and veneers. 

Minor spalling in veneers at a 

few corner openings.

Secondary Extensive crushing and shattering; some walls dislodge.Same as primary. Same as primary.

Drift2 0.6% transient

or permanent

0.5% transient; 

0.3% permanent

0.1% transient; 

negligible permanent

Unreinforced 

Masonry 

(Noninfill) Walls

Primary Extensive cracking; face course 

and veneer may peel off. Noticeable in- plane and out-of-plane 

offsets.

Extensive cracking. Noticeable inplane offsets of masonry and 

minor out-of-plane offsets.

Minor (< 1/8" width) cracking of 

veneers. Minor spalling in 

veneers at a few corner openings. No observable out-of- plane 

offsets.

Secondary Nonbearing panels dislodge. Same as primary. Same as primary.

Drift2 1% transient

or permanent

0.6% transient; 

0.6% permanent

0.3% transient; 

0.3% permanent

Table 4-4 Structural Performance Levels and Damage1—Vertical Elements (from FEMA 356) (Continued)
PERFORMANCE-BASED ENGINEERING: AN EMERGING CONCEPT IN SEISMIC DESIGN 4-17

Reinforced 

Masonry Walls

Primary Crushing; extensive cracking. 

Damage around openings and at 

corners. Some fallen units.

Extensive cracking 

(< 1/4") distributed throughout 

wall. Some isolated crushing.

Minor (< 1/8" width) cracking. 

No out-of-plane offsets.

Secondary Panels shattered and virtually 

disintegrated.

Crushing; extensive cracking; 

damage around openings and at 

corners; some fallen units.

Same as primary.

Drift2 1.5% transient 

or permanent

0.6% transient; 

0.6% permanent

0.2% transient; 

0.2% permanent

Wood Stud Walls

Primary Connections loose. Nails partially 

withdrawn. Some splitting of 

members and panels. Veneers 

dislodged.

Moderate loosening of connections and minor splitting of members.Distributed minor hairline cracking of gypsum and plaster 

veneers.

Secondary Sheathing sheared off. Let-in 

braces fractured and buckled. 

Framing split and fractured.

Connections loose. Nails partially 

withdrawn. Some splitting of 

members and panels.

Same as primary.

Drift2 3% transient 

or permanent

2% transient; 

1% permanent

1% transient; 

0.25% permanent

Precast Concrete 

Connections

Primary Some connection failures but no 

elements dislodged.

Local crushing and spalling at 

connections, but no gross failure 

of connections.

Minor working at connections; 

cracks 

< 1/16" width at connections.

Secondary Same as primary. Some connection failures but no 

elements dislodged.

Minor crushing and spalling at 

connections.

Foundations

General Major settlement and tilting. Total settlements < 6" and differential settlements < 1/2" in 30 

ft.

Minor settlement and negligible 

tilting.

Notes:

1. The damage states indicated in this table are provided to allow an understanding of the severity of damage that may be sustained by various structural elements when present in structures meeting the definitions of the Structural Performance Levels. These damage states are not intended for use 

in post- earthquake evaluation of damage nor for judging the safety of, or required level of repair to, a structure following an earthquake.

2. The drift values, differential settlements, and similar quantities indicated in these tables are not intended to be used as acceptance criteria for evaluating the acceptability of a rehabilitation design in accordance with the analysis procedures provided in these Guidelines; rather, they are indicative 

of the range of drift that typical structures containing the indicated structural elements may undergo when responding within the various performance levels. Drift control of a rehabilitated structure may often be governed by the requirements to protect nonstructural components. Acceptable 

levels of foundation settlement or movement are highly dependent on the construction of the superstructure. The values indicated are intended to be 

qualitative descriptions of the approximate behavior of structures meeting the indicated levels.

3. For limiting damage to frame elements of infilled frames, refer to the rows for concrete or steel frames.

Table 4-4 Structural Performance Levels and Damage1—Vertical Elements (from FEMA 356) (Continued)
4-18 PERFORMANCE-BASED ENGINEERING: AN EMERGING CONCEPT IN SEISMIC DESIGN

by these performance levels include architectural components (e.g., 

partitions, exterior cladding, and ceilings) and mechanical and electrical components (e.g., HVAC systems, plumbing, fire suppression systems, and lighting). Occupant contents and furnishings (such as 

inventory and computers) are often included as well.

Nonstructural Performance Levels relate to the limiting damage states 

for common elements of the building’s architectural features, utility systems, and contents and other equipment. Tables 4-5, 4-6, and 4-7 taken 

from FEMA 356, provide descriptions of the damage associated with the 

four Nonstructural Performance Levels of Hazards Reduced, Life 

Safety, Immediate Occupancy, and Operational for specific types of 

architectural components (Table 4-5); mechanical, electrical, and 

plumbing system components (Table 4-6); and contents (Table 4-7). 

4.4 IMPACT OF PERFORMANCE-BASED 

STRATEGIES ON FUTURE DESIGN CODES

While current design codes explicitly require life safety design for only a 

single level of ground motion, it is expected that future design codes 

will provide engineers with the necessary guidelines to design and construct buildings that meet a number of performance criteria when subjected to earthquake ground motion of differing severity. The current 

(2000) version of the NEHRP Recommended Provisions for Seismic Regulations for New Buildings and Other Structures (BSSC, 2001) has initiated a 

move towards incorporating performance-based strategies through the 

use of three “Seismic Use Groups.” These groups are categorized based 

on the occupancy of the structures and the relative consequences of 

earthquake-induced damage to the structures as follows:

❍ Group III structures are essential facilities required for 

postearthquake recovery, and those structures that contain significant amounts of hazardous materials. An example is a medical facility with emergency treatment facilities. 

❍ Group II structures are those having a large number of occupants 

and those where the occupants ability to exit is restrained. An 

example is an elementary school.

❍ Group I structures are all other structures, basically those with a 

lesser life hazard only insofar as there is expected to be fewer occupants in the structures and the structures are lower and/or smaller. 

An example is a low-rise commercial office building. 

The 2000 NEHRP Recommended Provisions for Seismic Regulations of New 

Buildings and Other Structures specify progressively more conservative 
PERFORMANCE-BASED ENGINEERING: AN EMERGING CONCEPT IN SEISMIC DESIGN 4-19

Table 4-5 Nonstructural Performance Levels and Damage—Architectural Components (from FEMA 356)

Component

Nonstructural Performance Levels

Hazards Reduced Level Life Safety Immediate Occupancy Operational 

Cladding Severe damage to connections and cladding. Many 

panels loosened.

Severe distortion in connections. Distributed cracking, 

bending, crushing, and spalling of cladding elements. 

Some fracturing of cladding, but panels do not fall.

Connections yield; minor 

cracks (< 1/16" width) or 

bending in cladding.

Connections yield; minor 

cracks (< 1/16" width) or 

bending in cladding.

Glazing General shattered glass and 

distorted frames. Widespread falling hazards.

Extensive cracked glass; 

little broken glass.

Some cracked panes; none 

broken.

Some cracked panes; none 

broken

Partitions Severe racking and damage 

in many cases.

Distributed damage; some 

severe cracking, crushing, 

and racking in some areas.

Cracking to about 1/16" 

width at openings. Minor 

crushing and cracking at 

corners.

Cracking to about 1/16" 

width at openings. Minor 

crushing and cracking at 

corners.

Ceilings Most ceilings damaged. 

Light suspended ceilings 

dropped. Severe cracking in 

hard ceilings.

Extensive damage. Dropped 

suspended ceiling tiles. Moderate cracking in hard ceilings.

Minor damage. Some suspended ceiling tiles disrupted. A few panels 

dropped. Minor cracking in 

hard ceilings.

Generally negligible damage. Isolated suspended 

panel dislocations, or cracks 

in hard ceilings.

Parapets and 

Ornamentation

Extensive damage; some 

fall in nonoccupied areas.

Extensive damage; some 

falling in nonoccupied areas.

Minor damage. Minor damage.

Canopies & 

Marquees

Extensive distortion. Moderate distortion. Minor damage. Minor damage.

Chimneys & Stacks Extensive damage. No collapse.Extensive damage. No collapse.Minor cracking. Negligible damage.

Stairs & Fire 

Escapes

Extensive racking. Loss of 

use.

Some racking and cracking 

of slabs, usable.

Minor damage. Negligible damage.

Light Fixtures Extensive damage. Falling 

hazards occur.

Many broken light fixtures. 

Falling hazards generally 

avoided in heavier fixtures 

(> 20 pounds).

Minor damage. Some pendant lights broken.Negligible damage.

Doors Distributed damage. Many 

racked and jammed doors.

Distributed damage. Some 

racked and jammed doors.

Minor damage. Doors operable.Minor damage. Doors operable.
4-20 PERFORMANCE-BASED ENGINEERING: AN EMERGING CONCEPT IN SEISMIC DESIGN

Table 4-6 Nonstructural Performance Levels and Damage—Mechanical, Electrical, and Plumbing Systems/Components (from FEMA 356)

System/

Component

Nonstructural Performance Levels

Hazards Reduced Life Safety Immediate Occupancy Operational 

Elevators Elevators out of service; 

counterweights off rails.

Elevators out of service; 

counterweights do not dislodge.

Elevators operable; can be 

started when power available.

Elevators operate.

HVAC Equipment Most units do not operate; 

many slide or overturn; some 

suspended units fall.

Units shift on supports, rupturing attached ducting, piping, and conduit, but do not 

fall.

Units are secure and most 

operate if power and other 

required utilities are available.

Units are secure and 

operate; emergency 

power and other utilities 

provided, if required.

Ducts Ducts break loose of equipment and louvers; some supports fail; some ducts fall.Minor damage at joints of 

sections and attachment to 

equipment; some supports 

damaged, but ducts do not 

fall.

Minor damage at joints, but 

ducts remain serviceable.

Negligible damage.

Piping Some lines rupture. Some 

supports fail. Some piping 

falls.

Minor damage at joints, with 

some leakage. Some supports 

damaged, but systems 

remain suspended.

Minor leaks develop at a 

few joints. 

Negligible damage.

Fire Sprinkler Systems Many sprinkler heads damaged by collapsing ceilings. 

Leaks develop at couplings. 

Some branch lines fail.

Some sprinkler heads damaged by swaying ceilings. 

Leaks develop at some couplings.

Minor leakage at a few 

heads or pipe joints. System 

remains operable.

Negligible damage.

Fire Alarm Systems Ceiling mounted sensors 

damaged. System nonfunctional.

May not function. System is functional. System is functional.

Emergency Lighting Some lights fall. Power may 

not be available.

System is functional. System is functional. System is functional.

Electrical Distribution 

Equipment

Units slide and/or overturn, 

rupturing attached conduit. 

Uninterruptable Power 

Source systems fail. Diesel 

generators do not start.

Units shift on supports and 

may not operate. Generators 

provided for emergency 

power start; utility service 

lost.

Units are secure and generally operable. Emergency 

generators start, but may 

not be adequate to service 

all power requirements.

Units are functional. 

Emergency power is provided, as needed.

Plumbing Some fixtures broken; lines 

broken; mains disrupted at 

source.

Some fixtures broken, lines 

broken; mains disrupted at 

source.

Fixtures and lines serviceable; however, utility service may not be available.System is functional. Onsite water supply provided, if required.
PERFORMANCE-BASED ENGINEERING: AN EMERGING CONCEPT IN SEISMIC DESIGN 4-21

strength, drift control, system selection, and detailing requirements for 

structures contained in the three groups, in order to attain minimum 

levels of earthquake performance suitable to the individual occupancies. The design criteria for each group are intended to produce specific types of performance in design earthquake events, based on the 

importance of reducing structural damage and improving life safety. 

Figure 4-4, taken from the Commentary to the 2000 NEHRP Provisions, 

illustrates this concept. 

Next-Generation Performance-Based Seismic Design Guidelines

Incorporation of performance-based engineering concepts in future 

design codes will also be aided by a major effort recently initiated by the 

Applied Technology Council (ATC) with funding from the Federal 

Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). The project, known as 

Table 4-7 Nonstructural Performance Levels and Damage—Contents (from FEMA 356)

Contents Type

Nonstructural Performance Levels

Hazards Reduced Life Safety Immediate Occupancy Operational

Computer Systems Units roll and overturn, disconnect cables. Raised 

access floors collapse.

Units shift and may disconnect cables, but do not 

overturn. Power not available.

Units secure and remain connected. Power may not be 

available to operate, and 

minor internal damage may 

occur.

Units undamaged and operable; power available.

Manufacturing 

Equipment

Units slide and overturn; 

utilities disconnected. 

Heavy units require reconnection and realignment. 

Sensitive equipment may 

not be functional.

Units slide, but do not 

overturn; utilities not 

available; some realignment required to operate.

Units secure, and most operable if power and utilities 

available.

Units secure and operable; 

power and utilities available.

Desktop Equipment Units slide off desks. Some equipment slides off 

desks.

Some equipment slides off 

desks.

Equipment secured to desks 

and operable.

File Cabinets Cabinets overturn and spill 

contents.

Drawers slide open; cabinets tip.Drawers slide open, but cabinets do not tip.Drawers slide open, but cabinets do not tip.

Book Shelves Shelves overturn and spill 

contents.

Books slide off shelves. Books slide on shelves. Books remain on shelves.

Hazardous Materials Severe damage; no large 

quantity of material 

released.

Minor damage; occasional 

materials spilled; gaseous 

materials contained.

Negligible damage; materials contained.Negligible damage; materials contained.

Art Objects Objects damaged by falling, water, dust.Objects damaged by falling, water, dust.Some objects may be damaged by falling.Objects undamaged.
4-22 PERFORMANCE-BASED ENGINEERING: AN EMERGING CONCEPT IN SEISMIC DESIGN

ATC-58, Development of Performance-Based Seismic Design Guidelines, is currently in Phase I, Project Initiation and Performance Characterization. 

FEMA has provided funding for Phase I of a planned multi-year program to develop the guidelines, following the general approach outlined in FEMA 349, Action Plan for Performance Based Seismic Design

(EERI, 2000). It is expected that the successful development of the 

guidelines will require a multi-year effort entailing financial and technical participation from the four NEHRP agencies as well as private industry.

FEMA 349 identifies six products essential to the creation and 

implementation of comprehensive, acceptable PerformanceBased Seismic Design Guidelines:

1. A Program Management Plan that incorporates a broadly 

based oversight group to shepherd and promote the development of the Guidelines (over an extended period of 

time, say up to 10 years), and an education and implementation strategy to facilitate the use of the Guidelines. 

2. Structural Performance Products that characterize building 

performance, specify how to evaluate a building’s performance capability for a specified level of seismic hazard and 

with a defined reliability or level of confidence, and provide guidance on how to design a structure to provide 

desired performance (with defined reliability).

Figure 4-4 Expected building performance. (from BSSC, 2001)
PERFORMANCE-BASED ENGINEERING: AN EMERGING CONCEPT IN SEISMIC DESIGN 4-23

3. Nonstructural Performance Products that provide engineers with the 

capability to evaluate and design nonstructural components, such as 

partitions, piping, HVAC (heating, ventilation, and air conditioning) equipment, with the goal of ensuring that such components 

will provide desired performance (with defined reliability). 

4. Risk Management Products that provide methodologies for calculating 

the benefits of designing to various performance objectives and to 

make rational economic choices about the levels of performance 

desired, the levels of confidence desired, and the comparative costs 

to reach those levels.

5. Performance-Based Seismic Design Guidelines that provide methodology 

and criteria for design professionals, material suppliers, and equipment manufacturers to implement performance-based design procedures.

6. A Stakeholders Guide that explains performance-based seismic design 

to nontechnical audiences, including building owners, managers, 

and lending institutions. 

4.5 GUIDANCE FOR DESIGN PROFESSIONALS

It is clear that performance-based strategies will be included in future 

seismic design codes. Regardless of when this actually occurs, design 

professionals can utilize the information in this document, as well as 

those referenced below, to provide owners and managers with a much 

clearer picture of what may be expected in terms of damage, downtime, 

and occupant safety for a given building under various intensities of 

ground motion.

When communicating with building owner representatives during the 

development of seismic performance criteria for a new building, it 

would be useful to:

1. Explain the concepts of performance-based seismic design using 

the concepts and materials provided in this document and the references cited.

2. Help the owner to determine if a performance level higher than life 

safety is needed for the design earthquake; if so, use these materials 

and the references cited to assist the owner in developing a design 

that would be accepted by the governing regulatory agency (e.g., 

local building department).
4-24 PERFORMANCE-BASED ENGINEERING: AN EMERGING CONCEPT IN SEISMIC DESIGN

4.6 REFERENCES AND FURTHER READING

ASCE, 2000, Prestandard and Commentary for the Seismic Rehabilitation of 

Buildings, prepared by the American Society of Civil Engineers, published by the Federal Emergency Management Agency, FEMA 356 

Report, Washington, DC.

ATC, 1996b, Seismic Evaluation and Retrofit of Concrete Buildings, Volumes 

1 and 2, Applied Technology Council, ATC-40 Report, Redwood City, 

California.

ATC, 2004a (in preparation), Improvement of Inelastic Seismic Analysis Procedures, prepared by the Applied Technology Council for the Federal Emergency Management Agency, FEMA 440, Washington, D.C.

ATC, 2004b (in preparation), Program Plan for Development of PerformanceBased Seismic Design Guidelines, prepared by the Applied Technology 

Council for the Federal Emergency Management Agency, FEMA 

445, Washington, D.C.

ATC, 2004c (in preparation), Characterization of Seismic Performance for 

Buildings, prepared by the Applied Technology Council for the Federal Emergency Management Agency, FEMA 446, Washington, D.C.

ATC/BSSC, 1997a, NEHRP Guidelines for the Seismic Rehabilitation of Buildings, prepared by the Applied Technology Council (ATC-33 project) 

for the Building Seismic Safety Council, published by the Federal 

Emergency Management Agency, FEMA 273 Report, Washington, 

DC.

ATC/BSSC, 1997b, NEHRP Commentary on the Guidelines for the Seismic 

Rehabilitation of Buildings, prepared by the Applied Technology 

Council (ATC-33 project) for the Building Seismic Safety Council, 

published by the Federal Emergency Management Agency, FEMA 

274 Report, Washington, DC.

BSSC, 2001, NEHRP Recommended Provisions for Seismic Regulations for New 

Buildings and Other Structures, Part I: Provisions, and Part II, Commentary, 2000 Edition, prepared by the Building Seismic Safety Council, 

published by the Federal Emergency Management Agency, Publications, FEMA 368 Report and FEMA 369 Report, Washington, DC.

SEAOC, 1995, Vision 2000: Performance-Based Seismic Engineering of Buildings, Structural Engineers Association of California, Sacramento, 

California.
PERFORMANCE-BASED ENGINEERING: AN EMERGING CONCEPT IN SEISMIC DESIGN 4-25

SEAOC, 1999, Recommended Lateral Force Requirements and Commentary, 

prepared by the Structural Engineers Association of California, published by the International Conference of Building Officials, Whittier, California.
4-26 PERFORMANCE-BASED ENGINEERING: AN EMERGING CONCEPT IN SEISMIC DESIGN
IMPROVING PERFORMANCE TO REDUCE SEISMIC RISK 5-1

IMPROVING PERFORMANCE TO REDUCE 

SEISMIC RISK 5

5.1 INTRODUCTION

Improving performance to reduce seismic risk is a multi-faceted issue 

that requires consideration of a broad range of factors. Previous chapters in this document have introduced and described the overarching 

concept of seismic risk management (Chapter 2) and two of the fundamental factors affecting improved seismic performance: consideration 

of the seismic hazards affecting the site (Chapter 3); and consideration 

of the desired seismic performance of structural and nonstructural 

components for the range of earthquakes of concern (Chapter 4). 

This chapter identifies and addresses related seismic design issues that 

are fundamentally important to improved seismic performance, regardless of the occupancy type: 

❍ selection of the structural materials and systems (Section 5.2);

❍ selection of the architectural/structural configuration (Section 

5.3);

❍ consideration of the expected performance of nonstructural components, including ceilings, partitions, heating, ventilation, and air 

condition equipment (HVAC), piping and other utility systems, and 

cladding (Section 5.4); 

❍ cost analysis, including consideration of both the benefits and costs 

of improved seismic performance (Sections 5.5 through 5.7);

❍ and quality control during the construction process (Section 5.8).

Considerable attention is given to the quantification of benefits and 

costs of improved seismic performance, given the underlying importance of cost considerations. Benefits include reduced direct capital 

losses and reduced indirect losses, which are related to the time that a 

given building is operationally out of service. Cost issues are demonstrated through several means, including the use of (1) graphics showing the relationship between the cost of various options for improving 

seismic performance versus the resulting benefits; and (2) case studies 

demonstrating best practices in earthquake engineering.

The Chapter concludes with a set of general recommendations for 

improving seismic performance during the seismic design and construction process, regardless of occupancy type. The subsequent six 

chapters focus on seismic design and performance issues related to spe-
5-2 IMPROVING PERFORMANCE TO REDUCE SEISMIC RISK

cific occupancy types: commercial office buildings (Chapter 6): retail 

commercial facilities (Chapter 7); light manufacturing facilities (Chapter 8); healthcare facilities (Chapter 9); local schools, kindergarten 

through grade 12 (Chapter 10); and higher education (university) facilities (Chapter 11).

5.2 SELECTION OF STRUCTURAL MATERIALS AND 

SYSTEMS

An earthquake has no knowledge of building function, but uncovers 

weaknesses in the building that are the result of errors or deficiencies in 

its design and construction. However, variations in design and construction will affect its response, perhaps significantly, and to the extent that 

these variations are determined by the occupancy, then each building 

type tends to have some unique seismic design determinants. A building that uses a moment–frame structure will have a different ground 

motion response than a building that uses shear walls; the frame structure is more flexible, so it will experience lower earthquake forces, but 

it will deflect more than the shear wall structure, and this increased 

motion may cause more damage to nonstructural components such as 

partitions and ceilings. The shear wall building will be much stiffer but 

this will attract more force: the building will deflect less but will experience higher accelerations and this will affect acceleration-sensitive components such as air conditioning equipment and heavy tanks.

These structural and nonstructural system characteristics can be 

deduced from the information in the seismic code, but the code is not a 

design guide and gives no direct guidance on the different performance characteristics of available systems or how to select an appropriate structural system for a specific site or building type.

Table 5-1 illustrates the seismic performance of common structural systems, both old and new, and gives some guidance as to the applicability 

of systems and critical design characteristics for good performance. 

The different structural performance characteristics mean that their 

selection must be matched to the specific building type and its architecture. Table 5-1 summarizes a great deal of information and is intended 

only to illustrate the point that structural systems vary in their performance. The table is not intended as the definitive tool for system selection; this requires extensive knowledge, experience and analysis. 

Table 5-2 shows structural system selections that are appropriate for different site conditions, for different occupancies and various building 

functions. For example, an important aspect of the building site is that 
IMPROVING PERFORMANCE TO REDUCE SEISMIC RISK 5-3

Table 5-1 Seismic Performance of Structural Systems (adapted from Elsesser, 1992)

SUMMARY OF SEISMIC PERFORMANCE OF STRUCTURAL SYSTEMS

Structural System Earthquake Performance Specific Building Performance 

and Energy Absorption General Comments

Wood Frame San Francisco, 1906

Alaska 1964

Other Earthquakes

Variable to Good

❍ San Francisco Buildings performed reasonably well even 

though not detailed.

❍ Energy Absorption is excellent

❍ Connection details are critical.

❍ Configuration is significant

Unreinforced 

Masonry Wall

San Francisco, 1906

Santa Barbara, 1925

Long Beach, 1933

Los Angeles, 1994

Variable to Poor

❍ Unreinforced masonry has performed poorly when not tied 

together.

❍ Energy absorption is good if system integrity is maintained.

❍ Continuity and ties 

between walls and diaphragm is essential.

Steel Frame

with Masonry Infill

San Francisco, 1906

Variable to Good

❍ San Francisco buildings performed very well.

❍ Energy absorption is excellent.

❍ Building form must be uniform, relatively small bay 

sizes.

Reinforced Concrete 

Wall

San Francisco, 1957

Alaska, 1964

Japan 1966

Los Angeles, 1994

Variable to Poor

❍ Buildings in Alaska, San Francisco and Japan performed 

poorly with spandrel and pier 

failure

❍ Brittle system

❍ Proportion of spandrel and 

piers is critical, detail for 

ductility and shear.

Steel Brace San Francisco, 1906

Taft, 1952

Los Angeles, 1994

Variable

❍ Major braced systems performed 

well.

❍ Minor bracing and tension 

braces performed poorly.

❍ Details and proportions 

are critical.

Steel Moment Frame Los Angeles, 1971

Japan, 1978

Los Angeles, 1994

? Good

❍ Los Angeles and Japanese buildings 1971/78 performed well.

❍ Energy absorption is excellent.

❍ Los Angeles 1994, mixed performance.

❍ Both conventional and 

ductile frame have performed well if designed for 

drift.

Concrete Shear Wall Caracas, 1965

Alaska, 1964

Los Angeles, 1971

Algeria, 1980

Variable

❍ Poor performance with discontinuous walls.

❍ Uneven energy absorption.

❍ Configuration is critical,

soft story or L-shape with 

torsion have produced failures.

Precast Concrete Alaska, 1964

Bulgaria, 1978

San Francisco, 1980

Los Angeles, 1994

Variable to Poor

❍ Poor performance in 1964, 

1978, 1980, 1994

❍ Details for continuity are 

critical

❍ Ductility must be achieved

Reinforced Concrete 

Ductile Moment Frame

Los Angeles, 1971

? Good

❍ Good performance in 1971, Los 

Angeles

❍ System will crack

❍ Energy absorption is good.

❍ Mixed performance in 1994 Los 

Angeles

❍ Details critical.
5-4 IMPROVING PERFORMANCE TO REDUCE SEISMIC RISK

Table 5-2 Structural Systems for Site Conditions and Occupancy Types (from Elsesser, 1992)

STRUCTURAL SYSTEMS FOR SITE CONDITIONS AND OCCUPANCY TYPES

Site Conditions “Soft” Site

(Long Period)

Use rigid building 

with short period

Shear Wall Steel Brace Eccentric Braced Frame

Distant Site 

(short period)

Use rigid building 

with short period

“Hard” Site

(Short Period)

Use flexible building with long 

period

Ductile Moment Frame Base Isolation

Poor Soils

(Pile Supported)

Use lightweight 

rigid building

Steel Braced Frame Steel Tube Frame

Occupancy High-Tech 

(labs, computers, hospitals)

Use ductile rigid 

systems for damage control

Eccentric Braced Frame Dual Wall / Ductile 

Moment Frame

Eccentric Braced Frame

Office Buildings Open Plan

Steel Ductile Moment 

Frame

Steel Braced Frame Eccentric Braced Frame

Residential Cellular Spaces

Concrete Shear Wall Steel Braced Frame
IMPROVING PERFORMANCE TO REDUCE SEISMIC RISK 5-5

a major structure must be “de-tuned,” that is, designed such that its fundamental period differs sufficiently from that of the ground so that dangerous resonance and force amplification are not induced. Thus, for a 

soft, long-period site; it is appropriate to use a rigid short period structural system; this need in turn must be related to other requirements of 

occupancy and function. 

Table 5-2 also illustrates that structures must be matched to the building’s use. For example, a concrete shear wall structure is appropriate 

for an apartment house because the strong cross walls are an economical way to provide the necessary seismic resistance and, at the same 

time, provide good acoustics between the apartments. While the purpose of Table 5-2 is to illustrate the way in which structural systems may 

be matched to the site condition and building design and use, the table 

is not intended as the definitive tool for system selection; this also 

requires extensive knowledge, experience, and analysis.

5.3 SELECTION OF THE ARCHITECTURAL 

CONFIGURATION

The architectural configuration—the building’s size, proportions and 

three-dimensional form—plays a large role in determining seismic performance. This is because the configuration largely determines the distribution of earthquake forces, that is, the relative size and nature of the 

forces as they work their way through the building. A good configuration will provide for a balanced force distribution, both in plan and section, so that the earthquake forces are carried directly and easily back to 

the foundations. A poor configuration results in stress concentrations 

and torsion, which at their worst are dangerous. 

Configuration problems have long been identified, primarily as the 

result of extensive observation of building performance in earthquakes. 

However, many of the problem configurations arise because they are 

useful and efficient in supporting the functional needs of the building 

or accommodating site constraints. The design task is to create configuration alternatives that satisfy both the architectural needs and provide 

for structural safety and economy. This requires that the architect and 

engineer must cooperate from the outset of the design process: first to 

arrive at an appropriate structural system to satisfy building needs, and 

then to negotiate detailed design alternatives that avoid, or reduce, the 

impact of potential problem configurations. 

Seismic codes now have provisions intended to deal with configuration 

problems. However, the code approach is to accept the problems and 
5-6 IMPROVING PERFORMANCE TO REDUCE SEISMIC RISK

attempt to solve them either by increasing design forces, or requiring a 

more sophisticated analysis. Neither of these approaches is satisfactory, 

for they do not remove the problem. In addition, many of the code provisions apply only to buildings that are five stories or over 65 feet in 

height, which leaves a large number of buildings unregulated by the 

code. The problem can only be solved by design and not by a prescriptive code. 

Design solutions for a soft first story condition that the architect and 

engineer might explore together include (see Figure 5-1):

❍ The architectural implications of eliminating it (which solves the 

structural problem);

❍ Alternative framing designs, such as increasing the number of columns or increasing the system stiffness by changing the design, to 

alleviate the stiffness discrepancy between the first and adjacent 

floors; and

❍ Adding bracing at the end of line of columns (if the site constraints 

permit this).

A more general problem is the increasing unpredictability of building 

response as the architectural/structural configuration increasingly deviates from an ideal symmetrical form. This has serious implications for 

Performance Based Design, which depends for its effectiveness on the 

ability of the engineer to predict structural performance. 

Tables 5-3 and 5-4 illustrate the above points by identifying the common 

configuration problems- termed “irregularities” that are dealt with in 

the seismic code. These are classified as vertical or plan irregularities. 

The tables show a diagram of each condition, illustrates the failure pattern and describes its effects. The designations and numbers of the 

conditions are identical to the code: the diagrams are not contained in 

the code but are interpretations of the descriptions of each condition 

that the code defines.

5.4 CONSIDERATION OF NONSTRUCTURAL 

COMPONENT PERFORMANCE

As discussed in Section 4.2, the majority of the damage that has resulted 

in building closure following recent U.S. earthquakes has been the 

result of damage to nonstructural components and systems. A building 

designed to current seismic regulations may perform well structurally in 

a moderate earthquake, but be rendered nonfunctional due to nonstructural damage. 
IMPROVING PERFORMANCE TO REDUCE SEISMIC RISK 5-7

Figure 5-1 Example design solutions for addressing soft story condition.
5-8 IMPROVING PERFORMANCE TO REDUCE SEISMIC RISK

Table 5-3 Vertical Irregularities, Resulting Failure Patterns, and Performance Implications

Vertical Irregularities Resulting Failure Patterns Performance

❍ Common collapse mechanism. 

Deaths and much damage in 1994 

Northridge earthquake.

V1: Stiffness Irregularity: Soft Story

❍ Collapse mechanism in extreme 

instances.

V2: Weight / Mass Irregularity

❍ Localized structural damage.

V3: Vertical Geometric Irregularity

❍ Localized structural damage.

V4: In-Plane Irregularity in Vertical Lateral Force-Resisting System

❍ Collapse mechanism in extreme 

instances.

V5: Capacity Discontinuity-Weak Story
IMPROVING PERFORMANCE TO REDUCE SEISMIC RISK 5-9

Table 5-4 Plan Irregularities, Resulting Failure Patterns, and Performance Implications

Plan Irregularities Resulting Failure Patterns Performance

❍ Localized damage.

❍ Collapse mechanism in extreme 

instances.

P1: Torsional Irregularity: Unbalanced Resistance

❍ Localized damage to diaphragms 

and attached elements.

❍ Collapse mechanism in extreme 

instances in large buildings.

P2: Reentrant Corners

❍ Localized damage to diaphragms 

and attached elements.

P3: Diaphragm Eccentricity and Cut-outs

❍ Collapse mechanism in extreme 

instances.

P4: Out-of-Plane Offsets: Discontinuous Shear Walls

❍ Leads to torsion and instability, 

localized damage.

P5: Nonparallel Lateral Force-Resisting Systems
5-10 IMPROVING PERFORMANCE TO REDUCE SEISMIC RISK

Nonstructural components may also, however, influence structural performance in response to ground shaking. Structural analysis to meet 

code requirements assumes a bare structure. Nonstructural components that are attached to the structure, and heavy contents, depending 

on their location, may introduce torsional forces. Characteristic examples of structural/nonstructural interaction are as follows: 

❍ Heavy masonry partitions that are rigidly attached to columns and 

under floor slabs, can, if asymmetrically located, introduce localized 

stiffness and create stress concentrations and torsional forces. A 

particular form of this condition, that has caused significant structural damage, is when short column conditions are created by the 

insertion of partial masonry walls between columns. The addition 

of such partial walls after the building completion is often treated as 

a minor remodel that is not seen to require engineering analysis. 

The result is that the shortened columns have high relative stiffness, 

attract a large percentage of the earthquake forces, and fail 

(Figure 5-2). 

Figure 5-2 Elevation views of building with short columns between first and second floors. Upper sketch 

show the building in an unshaken state; lower sketch shows damage mechanism under earthquake lateral loading.
IMPROVING PERFORMANCE TO REDUCE SEISMIC RISK 5-11

❍ In smaller buildings, stairs can act as bracing members between 

floors, introducing torsion; the solution is to detach the stair from 

the floor slab at one end to allow free structural movement.

❍ In storage areas or library stacks, heavy storage items can introduce 

torsion into a structure. The structure may have been calculated to 

accommodate the maximum dead load but consideration be lacking for the effect of nonsymmetric loading over time as, for example, when library books are acquired (Figure 5-3).

5.5 QUANTIFYING THE BENEFITS OF IMPROVED 

PERFORMANCE

The benefits of improved performance are the reduced losses resulting 

from improved performance. These reduced losses include not only 

Figure 5-3 Nonsymmetric loading of book stacks in library building. Position and weight of stacks could 

induce torsional response of building during earthquake shaking.
5-12 IMPROVING PERFORMANCE TO REDUCE SEISMIC RISK

the reduction in capital losses (as described below), but also the reduction in financial impacts resulting from the loss of operations. 

The benefits of improved earthquake performance of a building are 

quantified differently by the various types of building owners and users. 

For example, an owner occupant, an owner of a tenant-occupied building, and a tenant will all have different priorities and views regarding 

the cost-benefit trade-offs associated with improved earthquake performance of the building.

From the point of view of an owner occupant, earthquake performance 

of a building can be quantified in terms of reducing the probability of: 

❍ deaths and injuries in and around the building caused by an earthquake, and the resultant liability;

❍ collapse of the building or damage to the building that reduces the 

building's value;

❍ disruption of building services (HVAC, plumbing, electrical) and 

the resultant loss of use of the building or portions of it;

❍ damage to building contents such as furniture, files, and inventory; 

and

❍ disruption of building operation and business as a result of the 

above.

From the point of view of an owner of a tenant-occupied building, 

earthquake performance of a building can be quantified in terms of 

reducing the probability of:

❍ deaths and injuries in and around the building caused by an earthquake, and the resultant liability;

❍ collapse of the building or damage to the building that reduces the 

building's value; and

❍ disruption of building services (HVAC, plumbing, electrical) and 

the resultant loss of use of the building or portions of it (tenant 

business interruption).

From the point of view of a tenant who is not the owner, earthquake 

performance of a building can be quantified in terms of reducing the 

probability of:

❍ disruption of building services (e.g., HVAC, plumbing, electrical) 

and the resultant loss of use of the building or parts of it;

❍ damage to building contents such as furniture, files, and contents; 

and
IMPROVING PERFORMANCE TO REDUCE SEISMIC RISK 5-13

❍ disruption of building operation and business as a result of the 

above.

Quantifying Expected Capital Losses

Capital losses consist of the cost of replacing or repairing 

earthquake-damaged structural and nonstructural components as well as damaged building contents. When quantifying capital value of damaged building components and 

contents, the first distinction that needs to be made is 

between the depreciated value of an asset, its market value, 

and its replacement cost. The assumption is generally that 

damaged capital will be replaced. If a 50-year-old building or piece of 

equipment is damaged to the extent that it is a total loss, it is unlikely 

that an owner can have a replacement building constructed or purchase 

a new piece of equipment for the same price as the original cost, nor for 

the depreciated value of the building or equipment (which may be very 

low, or zero). One may purchase a replacement building or piece of 

equipment that is 50 years old. Still, the price of that building or equipment will be based not on the depreciated value, but on the current 

market value of the asset. When the cost of losing an asset is evaluated, 

the owner must therefore determine what the cost to replace the asset 

will be, whether it is new or used.

An owner can use various means to estimate the replacement cost of a 

building or its contents. Realtors, manufacturers, engineers, and other 

specialists can research market conditions to estimate costs. If the 

owner has a large number of facilities or buildings, he/she may have a 

database of recent capital projects from which to draw information.

If structural and nonstructural building elements suffer less than total 

loss in an earthquake, they can often be repaired without being 

replaced. Theoretically, one would never spend more than 

the replacement cost of the building to repair structural 

and nonstructural damage. Practically, most owners consider the limit of repair costs to be on the order of 40 to 60 

percent of the replacement cost. The older the building or 

equipment, typically the lower the threshold. The reasoning is that if a building or piece of equipment is old and 

outdated, repairing it leaves the owner with something 

that, although functional, is still old and possibly outdated.

Owners may have other constraints which raise or lower this threshold. 

If short on cash or credit, an owner may have no choice but to repair a 

Quantifying Capital Value

When quantifying capital value, the first distinction that 

needs to be made is between the depreciated value of an 

asset, its market value, and its replacement cost.

Repair Costs

Most owners consider the limit of repair costs to be on the 

order of 40 to 60 percent of the replacement cost. The 

older the building or equipment, typically the lower the 

threshold. Owners, however, may have other constraints 

which raise or lower this threshold. 
5-14 IMPROVING PERFORMANCE TO REDUCE SEISMIC RISK

heavily damaged building rather than replace it. If the operations 

within the building are so valuable that losses from down time far 

exceed the building’s replacement cost, then even if very expensive 

repairs can be done more quickly than replacement, the threshold of 

repairable damage may also be high. On the other hand, if an owner 

has been looking to get rid of an old, poorly configured, structure even 

small amounts of damage may provide a convenient excuse to replace 

the building.

It should be clear that unit repair costs are rarely equal to 

the unit costs of new construction. The cost of building 

partition walls in a new building, for example, may be on 

the order of five dollars per square foot. Repairing heavily 

damaged partition walls may cost more than twice this 

amount. Removing and replacing a damaged steel brace 

within a building may cost several times the cost of installing the brace 

in a new building. 

A key to estimating the cost of repairing structural and nonstructural 

damage is understanding what the nature of the damage may look like. 

This is often defined as the “fragility” of the building system. Fragility 

presents the likelihood of damage as a function of the forces or deformations imposed on the building. Damage may be described in terms 

that include cracking or spalling of concrete elements; fracturing or 

buckling of steel beams, columns, or braces; glazing breakage; and partition cracking or failure. Estimating how much damage occurs at a specific stress or deformation has been and continues to be the subject of 

research. Once estimates of the damage are made, contractors and cost 

estimators can provide valuable assistance to owners and the design 

team in estimating repair costs.

Damage to contents and inventory is usually quantified in 

terms of the amount of each that needs to be replaced. In 

some cases, with very expensive equipment or inventory, 

one might consider repairing damage. In most instances, 

however, damaged items are typically replaced. Damage to 

non-fixed items typically occurs as a result of high accelerations “flinging” items off shelves or overturning them. Earthquakeinduced accelerations vary over the height of a building so that items in 

upper stories may be more prone to damage than at lower stories. Estimating the amount of damage to contents and inventory involves calculating the acceleration at each level and estimating the capacity of 

elements at each story to withstand these accelerations. Shelving 

Repair Cost Vs Cost of New Construction

It should be clear that unit repair costs are rarely equal to 

the unit costs of new construction—they are typically 

higher.

Quantifying Replacement Costs

Damage to contents and inventory is usually quantified in 

terms of the amount of each that needs to be replaced. 
IMPROVING PERFORMANCE TO REDUCE SEISMIC RISK 5-15

should be evaluated as to its overturning capacity and the potential 

damage of items that are spilled.

Contents such as desks and cabinets are fairly resilient to damage from 

sliding or falling, and are typically considered as losses only when they 

cannot be recovered because of substantial structural damage. Therefore, one might consider a threshold of structural damage (say when 

the building is condemned following an earthquake, or when it reaches 

its replacement threshold) at which point most of the contents are considered lost. 

Quantifying Loss of Operations

Structural and nonstructural damage may require that a building’s 

operations be curtailed or cease altogether for some period during 

repair or replacement. The loss of operations will have a direct effect 

on the revenue or “value” of the services or goods that the business produces. It will also, presumably, have a broader impact on its employees, 

on the customers that it serves, and possibly on the community or 

region as a whole. Business interruption may also be a factor in how 

soon, if ever, the business can recover lost opportunities and markets.

The primary impacts caused by loss of operations include:

❍ Direct loss of revenue or value;

❍ Indirect losses to employees, customers, and the community at 

large; and

❍ Long term business losses.

All three of these impacts are dependent on how long and to what 

extent the business is out of operation. This is usually a function of 

structural and nonstructural damage, and may also be a function of 

contents loss. The impact of loss of operations on two facility types are 

demonstrated in the two example case studies described on the following page.

The loss of function of any single building is unlikely to cause devastating consequences to people in the affected region; nonetheless, these 

losses can be severe if the affected facilities are critical to community 

functions or the local or regional economy. Following are example situations where the loss of a critical facility can negatively affect the community as a whole or have far-reaching consequences:

❍ In August, the only high school in a city is damaged to the point 

where it must be replaced. Where do the students go to school for 

the coming year or more while a new facility is designed and built?
5-16 IMPROVING PERFORMANCE TO REDUCE SEISMIC RISK

Loss of Operations Case Study: Data Center

Situation. 

A tilt-up building used as a data center suffers damage that causes a partial closure such that until cracks in several shear walls are repaired, access 

can only be allowed for up to four hours a day by no more than ten employees.

Because of the vibration-sensitive equipment contained in the building and the need for constant structural monitoring, the limitation on access 

essentially means that only 25% of the data center can be operated and maintained until the cracks are repaired. 

Repairs take six months after which time the data center is fully functional.

Impacts Resulting from Loss of Operations.

The data center, which provides server space for clients, will lose 75 percent of its revenue initially. Suppose that, after three months, enough of the 

space is repaired so that 50 percent of the center’s capability can be restored. The direct losses could be 75 percent of its revenue for the first three 

months and 50 percent of its revenue for three additional months. Indirectly, however, the data center company may have to either pay its 

employees salaries during that time, or temporarily or permanently lay them off. In the latter case, the company may have to pay the expense of 

rehiring employees once the facility is fully functional. The company may also have to pay damages to clients that lost data because of the loss of 

operations.

Long term, the data center company may permanently lose the customers it wasn’t able to keep while repairs were in process. These customers 

presumably need server space following the earthquake and during the center’s repair, and would look elsewhere for it. Once they find alternate 

space, they may be reluctant to switch back. The company, therefore, may lose market share for some time until it can recover lost clients or 

generate new ones.

Loss of Operations Case Study: University Laboratory Building

Situation.

A university laboratory building is badly damaged after an event with losses greater than 60 percent of the replacement cost. The building and 

laboratory equipment are twenty years old; the university therefore makes the decision to replace the building.

The laboratory is highly specialized, and researchers are unable to proceed with their experimental work for the three-year duration of the building 

replacement. The new building will, however, contain state-of-the-art facilities.

Impacts Resulting from Loss of Operations.

In the second example, the university would presumably lose the direct revenue in grant funding it received for the research conducted in the 

laboratory. Because the university is a non-profit organization, and a significant portion (say, 1/3) of the grant revenue pays university overhead 

costs, which include campus-wide expenses, loss of the laboratory would have consequences that reach far beyond the loss of the laboratory facility. 

Such loss revenue could cause campus-wide reductions in staffing and other goods and services, depending on the ratio of overhead revenue lost 

versus overhead revenue amounts from other sources.

Beyond the immediate revenue losses in this example are the additional potential impacts if students, faculty, and staff elect to leave for other 

institutions if they cannot continue to conduct the research of their choice at the university. This could have a long and lasting impact on the output 

and future funding for the university, and may hurt its future ability to attract researchers and students. These considerations are not easy to 

quantify in dollar terms; they should, however, play an important role in determining the willingness to invest in a better performing building.
IMPROVING PERFORMANCE TO REDUCE SEISMIC RISK 5-17

❍ The only county hospital with a trauma center is rendered non-functional during an event that causes dozens of life-threatening injuries 

within the community.

❍ A pharmaceutical manufacturing plant that produces a popular 

drug for which the company owns the patent is destroyed in an 

earthquake. How will patients continue to get the drug?

❍ An automotive parts manufacturer that provides “just-in-time” supplies to an automobile maker cannot function for three months. 

How will this affect the automobile company’s ability to produce 

cars and its ability to keep its employees busy?

It is almost impossible to put a dollar value on the cost of 

these losses because, like many other events, the repercussions can be difficult to completely define. It is therefore 

unrealistic to develop a pure cost–benefit study equating 

additional dollars spent on better performance with savings 

in terms of these reduced indirect effects.

One can, however, make comparative studies with respect to other types 

of risks and establish an equivalent value of tolerating them. In any of 

the examples above, the building owner will likely have liability insurance to protect against claims that could have a devastating impact on 

the entity. A private school might have a catastrophic insurance policy 

to protect against a student being killed in a sporting event; a public 

school may have locally- or state-granted legal protections. A hospital 

certainly has malpractice insurance and an automotive plant will have 

worker’s compensation insurance. However, insurance policies all have 

limits on coverage. If losses exceed the coverage limit the result could 

be bankruptcy. Yet the owner in all cases makes a decision to limit coverage and therefore to accept the remaining risk of catastrophic loss.

Considering the example of the school injury, if a family of an injured 

student wins a judgment exceeding the school’s insurance policy, the 

school may have to declare bankruptcy and close its doors. The school 

may be able to avert this consequence if it buys additional insurance. 

However, at some point it makes the decision that it is not going to 

spend more in premiums and is willing to accept the risk of a catastrophic loss. The process to arrive at this limit may have been explicitly 

or implicitly thought out. Regardless, it can be used as a guide for making other decisions about risk management for earthquakes. The case 

study icon (see next page) illustrates this hypothetical situation.

It is almost impossible to put a dollar value on the cost of 

indirect losses. One can, however, make comparative studies with respect to other types of risks and establish an 

equivalent value of tolerating them. 
5-18 IMPROVING PERFORMANCE TO REDUCE SEISMIC RISK

When determining the level of performance for which a building 

should be designed, an owner may want to consider involving those outside the business who will be indirectly affected by the potential loss of 

operations. A community might be willing to contribute to the cost of a 

higher performance design of a school if it considers the value of having the building usable after an earthquake sufficiently high. Similarly, 

an auto maker might contribute to the performance-based design of 

one of its parts suppliers if it considers an uninterrupted supply of parts 

crucial to its own operations.

Social and Political Factors Affecting Seismic Risk Management

Emotion and politics are often important factors in the seismic risk 

management decision-making process. Parents of school children may 

say, “No price is too high to pay for the safety of my child.” Politicians 

or business leaders may proclaim, “We have a zero tolerance policy for 

placing the occupants of our buildings at risk.” While well intended, 

these positions are not often achieved in practice. 

Comparative Risk Tolerance Case Study: Seismic Risk Management Versus Student Injury Liability Insurance

Student injury liability policy:

❍ Up to $1,000,000 per incident (excludes earthquakes)

❍ Annual premium: $40,000

❍ Out-of-pocket loss above which would result in school bankruptcy: $2,000,000

❍ Total manageable loss: $1,000,000 (insurance) + $2,000,000 (out-of-pocket) = $3,000,000

❍ Annual likelihood of a $3,000,000 claim: 1/2%

 Risk Tolerance: willing to spend $40,000 annually to limit risk to a 1/2% chance of a catastrophic loss.

Earthquake risk management situation:

❍ School is planning to move to a new site and build new facilities.

❍ Earthquake ground motions with a 1/2 % probability of being exceeded per year, (which correspond to a 200-year return period) are expected to 

cause $500,000 in capital losses, relocation for six months at a cost of $500,000, and injury to students at a cost of $1,500,000 = $2,500,000 

total.

❍ Risk of 1/2 % for a $2,500,000 loss exceeds threshold ($2,000,000) established for student injury liability (see above)

Comparable Risk Tolerance: If the premium for earthquake insurance is no more than $40,000 to cover $500,000 of capital losses, then spending 

on earthquake risk reduction is at least as good an investment as the liability policy.
IMPROVING PERFORMANCE TO REDUCE SEISMIC RISK 5-19

The concept of placing a quantified (dollar) value on the life or safety 

of each person is a controversial issue that impacts benefit-cost analysis. 

This approach is implemented by comparing the value of saved lives 

(the benefit) to the cost of protecting those lives. Political or emotional constraints often make this extremely difficult. If an owner looks 

beyond life safety, however, and focuses on capital losses or down time, 

then it is practical and possibly necessary to quantify these losses in 

terms that can be compared directly to the costs to reduce them. The 

fact that most new U.S.-code-designed buildings are expected to provide life safety (for the range of earthquakes that may occur over the life 

of the building) renders the need to assign dollar values to human lives 

less imperative.

5.6 COSTS OF IMPROVED PERFORMANCE

Building owners incur costs to obtain specified levels of building performance. These costs are considered “first costs” if incurred at the time of 

building design and construction or purchase. They are considered 

“operating costs” if incurred over the period of use of the building.

It should be noted that the period of use of a building by its owner 

might differ from the life of the building. The life of a building may be 

60 years or more, while the owner’s use could be much shorter. When 

considering societal costs of a building, for example energy use, society’s interest in operating costs are spread over the life of the building, 

regardless of owner turnover. The life of the building is also of interest 

in the operating cost considerations of certain types of owners, particularly institutional owners such as schools and universities. However, for 

most commercial owners considering making an investment in a building, operating costs are of interest only over the period that the owner 

anticipates owning the building.

First Costs

The following are typical of first costs:

❍ The costs of site selection, including the cost of physical and economic analysis of alternative sites.

❍ The costs of planning and programming a new building, including 

the costs of consultants.

❍ The costs of architectural and engineering design and construction 

management, in the case of the construction of a new building, or 
5-20 IMPROVING PERFORMANCE TO REDUCE SEISMIC RISK

the transaction costs (e.g., inspection and appraisal), in the case of 

the acquisition of an existing building.

❍ The disruption of operations resulting from the move from a currently used building to a new building.

Except for the last item, there is generally a direct relationship between 

cost and building performance (including seismic performance) – a 

higher first cost investment typically results in improved performance.

Operating cost analyses often categorize the costs of construction or 

purchase as first costs. This is short sighted in most cases, since these 

costs are usually financed through mortgages or bonds, which converts 

them into continuous operating costs.

Operating Costs

The following are typical operating costs:

❍ Operation and maintenance of the building, including costs of 

earthquake response and recovery.

❍ Replacement of building components and systems, including the 

cost of disruption of operation related to these activities, both of 

which can be annualized if converted to a payment into a replacement reserve fund.

❍ Changing the building to accommodate new functions or technology, and the disruption of operation resulting from such activities 

(which is analogous to churn rate).

❍ Insuring the building. Higher costs in this category may improve 

building performance by reducing unrecoverable losses or they may 

be inversely related to it, depending on insurance company underwriting practices.

❍ Building and contents damage resulting from unpredictable events, 

such as natural and man-made disasters, which can be expressed as 

a probability of incurring an annual cost.

❍ Disruption of operation due to building damage resulting from 

unpredictable events, which can be also expressed as a probability 

of incurring an annual cost.

❍ Liability for deaths and injuries from building damage resulting 

from unpredictable events.
IMPROVING PERFORMANCE TO REDUCE SEISMIC RISK 5-21

The Relationship Between Cost and Performance

An advantage of performance-based design is that it provides a means 

for the design team to create a relationship between construction cost 

and performance. Traditionally (i.e., using existing seismic codes for 

new building design), to achieve better performance an engineer might 

simply increase the importance (I) factor from 1.0 to 1.25, thereby raising the design seismic forces by 25%. This may make a building perform better; however, the benefit is not easily quantifiable, even if the 

cost in increased steel tonnage or concrete volume can be estimated.

A more refined way of achieving a specified performance in a cost efficient manner is to develop “learning curve” type relationships between 

the two. Consider the example in Figure 5-4. A hypothetical precast 

concrete tilt-up manufacturing facility is to be constructed in a moderately high seismic zone. The lowest cost for the building is that which 

meets the minimum requirements of the building code. At this design 

level, the building will be expected to suffer some loss in the “worst 

case” earthquake, however that is defined. Additional investments in 

Figure 5-4 Relationship between cost and performance for hypothetical example.
5-22 IMPROVING PERFORMANCE TO REDUCE SEISMIC RISK

improved performance might be considered by the design team and 

owner. If the cost for each investment is added cumulatively as each is 

included in the construction budget then the expected worst case loss 

should decrease. As this example shows, investments in postearthquake 

response and nonstructural bracing result in a relatively large benefit in 

terms of reduced losses. Adding interior shear walls results in a moderate benefit. Increasing diaphragm strength and changing the entire 

structural system to unbonded braces produce a relatively low benefit.

This example can be taken further by computing the benefit-cost ratio 

(BCR) for each performance strategy. Suppose the likelihood of the 

worst case event occurring over a 50-year life of the building is 25%, 

which corresponds to a 0.58% annual probability of occurrence2, and 

that the code minimum cost is equal to the replacement cost. Assuming 

a 5% discount rate (rate of return), the resulting benefits and costs are 

as summarized in Table 5-5.

2. Computed as (ln(1-probability of occurrence in n years))/(-n years)

Table 5-5 Summary of Benefits and Costs for Hypothetical Manufacturing Facility Example

Risk Reduction 

Strategy

--------------------------------(As Percent of replacement cost)------------------------------ BCR

(Benefit/

Cumulative 

Cost of 

investment)

Cumulative Cost of 

investment (above 

Code Minimum)

"Worst Case" 

Loss Present Value of Loss1 Benefit2

Code minimum 

design

0.0% 40% 4.2% 0.0% -

Post earthquake 

recovery program

0.5% 30% 3.2% 1.0% 2.1 

Better nonstructural bracing2.5% 20% 2.1% 2.1% 0.85

Adding interior 

shear walls

7.5% 10% 1.1% 3.2% 0.42

Increase diaphragm capacity12.5% 7% 0.7% 3.5% 0.28

Unbonded brace 

structural system

27.5% 5% 0.5% 3.7% 0.13

Notes:

1

Computed as: where PV = the Present Value of Loss; pmt = Annual Loss (“Worst Case” Loss times the annual

 probability of occurrence); r = rate of return; and n = life of building in years

2

Present Value of Loss for code minimum design less Present Value of Loss with cumulative investment in performance

PV pmt 1

r

-- 1

r( ) 1 + r n = ⋅ ---------------------
IMPROVING PERFORMANCE TO REDUCE SEISMIC RISK 5-23

The example suggests that, in this case, the incorporation of a postearthquake recovery program with a BCR of 2.1 is clearly a good investment. Improving nonstructural bracing in addition results in a BCR of 

0.85 suggesting that it is possibly a good investment. The other performance strategies appear not to be economically beneficial.

A careful study of possible design strategies may lead to several cost–performance curves, such as Figure 5-4, incorporating different combinations of performance strategies. These will then allow the owner and 

the design team to select the one that achieves the greatest expected 

return on the investment.

5.7 CASE STUDIES OF COST AND PERFORMANCE 

CONSIDERATIONS 

The following five case studies illustrate how different owners have 

addressed cost and performance considerations in seismic risk management decisions. 

Case Study 1: Computer Graphics Equipment Maker in Salt 

Lake City, Utah 

Salt Lake City, Utah is the headquarters of a small computer graphics 

equipment maker, as shown in Figure 5-5. The company’s main products are high-end simulation systems that sell for nearly $10 million 

each. Its new corporate office was to include a large assembly floor in 

Figure 5-5 Site of facilities for computer graphics equipment maker in Salt 

Lake City, Utah.
5-24 IMPROVING PERFORMANCE TO REDUCE SEISMIC RISK

which eight to ten of these devices would be assembled at one time, as 

well as a floor of office space above. All of the company’s manufacturing would be housed within the building. The loss of a single simulation device as a result of an earthquake would have caused a 

catastrophic loss for the company, resulting in possible bankruptcy. 

The local structural engineer of record was skilled in performancebased design and well known in Salt Lake City because of his efforts to 

expand awareness of seismic issues. The engineer was able to develop a 

relationship with the owner directly, although he was part of a design 

team headed by an architect. This “access” to the owner was crucial in 

providing an opportunity for the engineer to explain concepts of performance-based seismic design. He and the owner discussed critical 

structural issues that could affect building performance and impact 

repair costs and business restoration. 

The code in force at the time of construction would likely have protected the building against most earthquakes. The seismicity in the Salt 

Lake City region during a typical 30-50 year building life is relatively 

low. However, considering the consequence of damage and lost functionality, even the relatively low vulnerability still resulted in an intolerably high risk to the owner.

Because of the extremely high value of contents and cost of lost operations, a performance objective was established to limit structural and 

nonstructural damage in a rare event to a level that would protect the 

contents and allow operations to continue unimpeded. 

To achieve this performance objective, the building was base isolated. 

The project team justified the additional cost associated with a base isolated building over a conventional structure by noting that the cost of 

the isolated structure was still less than the value of a single simulator. 

The vulnerability of the enhanced building was substantially lower than 

would be for a similar conventional structure. Much of the equipment, 

including the simulator devices, was braced to prevent tipping or sliding. The overall reduction in risk achieved was dramatic and met the 

owner’s risk threshold. To reduce the risk any further, the building 

would likely have to have been re-sited to a region of lower seismicity. 

Case Study 2: Salt Lake City, Salt Lake City K-12 School District

The Salt Lake City School District consists of 30-40 sites and contains 

buildings more than 70 years old, as shown in Figure 5-6. The District 
IMPROVING PERFORMANCE TO REDUCE SEISMIC RISK 5-25

embarked upon a program of seismically upgrading its buildings to 

ensure that they would be safe and usable following a major seismic 

event. The District made the determination that it wanted to achieve a 

70-year additional life for its structures. 

Its study of the existing school facilities found that when nonstructural 

rehabilitation costs (e.g., heating, electrical, roofing, and deferred 

maintenance) were added to the structural costs necessary to achieve 

the high performance objective, many of the rehabilitations would cost 

more than the replacement cost of the building. In these cases the decision was made to replace the facilities with new designs such as that 

shown in Figure 5-7. 

Figure 5-6 Sample existing school building in Salt Lake City K-12 School 

District.

Figure 5-7 Sample new school building design in Salt Lake City K-12 

School District.
5-26 IMPROVING PERFORMANCE TO REDUCE SEISMIC RISK

Recognizing that building codes can change dramatically even over the 

course of ten to twenty years, the District asked its engineering consultant to evaluate the performance needs with its long lifetime in mind. 

The engineer crafted simple yet effective graphics similar to the plot 

shown in Figure 5-8 to help the District determine its risk tolerance. A 

site hazard curve (see discussion in Section 3.2) was developed (see 

Figure 5-8) to show the expected ground accelerations plotted against 

their probability of exceedence in 50 years. Salt Lake City is in Uniform 

Building Code (UBC) Seismic Zone 3, and the vertical line at 10% show 

the design ground motion specified by the UBC. Over a 70-year period, 

the probability of exceedence of this level of ground shaking increases 

from 10% to 14%. Another vertical line is drawn at 2% probability of 

exceedence in 50 years, representing perhaps the maximum credible 

event in the area. Over a period of 70 years, the probability of 

exceedence of this level of ground shaking increases from 2% to 

approximately 3%. Most notable is the dramatically higher ground 

motions that would be expected in the 2% probability of exceedence in 

50-year event. This analysis showed that designing only for ground 

motions having a 10% probability of exceedence in 50 years meant 

there was still a risk of much higher ground motions that could seriously damage the facilities. The District wanted to achieve a higher level 

of confidence than 14% over the 70-year lifetime that damage would be 

Figure 5-8 Site hazard curve for Salt Lake City K-12 School District 

seismic risk study.
IMPROVING PERFORMANCE TO REDUCE SEISMIC RISK 5-27

kept to a minimum. The design forces for the 2% probability of 

exceedence in 50-year event compared well to the UBC Seismic Zone 4 

design forces. Therefore, the District decided to design all its new facilities to Zone 4 requirements for forces and detailing, pending a cost 

analysis of the upgraded performance.

The consulting engineer estimated that to enhance a new facility’s 

design from Zone 3 to Zone 4 compliance would add a cost on average 

of 1⁄4 to 1% of the construction budget. The District quickly realized that 

amortized over the length of its construction financing and certainly 

over the length of the 70-year assumed lifetime, this additional cost was 

negligible and therefore adopted the enhanced design strategy.

Key factors in the owner’s decision to use an enhanced performance 

objective were the expected longevity of the facilities and the number of 

buildings in the portfolio. The importance to the community of the 

school district, the large capital investment that was being made over 

the entire inventory, and the not inconsiderable likelihood of a damaging event occurring over the lives of the buildings were also important 

considerations in the District’s decision. 

Case Study 3: Prosthesis Manufacturing Company in Memphis, Tennessee

A prosthesis manufacturing company in Memphis, Tennessee was nearing completion of a 100,000 square foot manufacturing plant in early 

2002. The products manufactured within the building generate revenues of nearly $500,000 per day. The building operations are insured 

against down time by a large international insurance company. 

The building was built to the structural and nonstructural requirements 

of the 1997 Southern Building Code (SBCCI, 1997). The insurer offered 

to reduce the building’s insurance premiums significantly 

if the nonstructural bracing was brought into conformance 

with the more severe requirements in the 2000 International 

Building Code (ICC, 2000). The International Building Code

(IBC) requires that nonstructural bracing be designed to 

consider site conditions including soil and proximity to 

faults, and the location of the equipment within the building.

A New York based manufacturer and supplier of mechanical equipment 

bracing products was hired to assess the additional cost of bracing the 

equipment to the higher standard. Typically, the IBC design required 

Cost-Effectiveness of Nonstructural Bracing

Improving the seismic nonstructural bracing in new buildings located in moderate seismic zones can be very cost 

efficient in terms of reducing losses
5-28 IMPROVING PERFORMANCE TO REDUCE SEISMIC RISK

only larger elements (e.g., anchor bolts, clevises, rods) and not a substantial change to the design configuration. 

The manufacturer performed a detailed comparison of the two codes 

and prepared a side-by-side comparison of the cost premium for the 

IBC design. An excerpt from the comparison is shown in Table 5-6.

The results of the study showed that the additional cost of upgrading 

the seismic bracing was negligible as a percentage of the overall nonstructural costs. The company decided, based on the benefit of reduced 

insurance premiums, to implement the higher standard.

This example suggests that improving the seismic nonstructural bracing 

in new buildings located in moderate seismic zones can be very cost efficient in terms of reducing losses. It may also result in the direct benefit 

of reduced annual insurance costs.

Case Study 4: Stanley Hall, University of California Berkeley

The University of California (UC) at Berkeley is one of the nation’s premier research institutions. In 2003 the university broke ground for a 

state-of-the-art bio-engineering laboratory building as shown in 

Figure 5-9. The estimated cost of the project is nearly $200 million. The 

building will contain high-end laboratory facilities and house researchers working annually on nearly $40 million in grants. UC Berkeley sits 

Table 5-6 Comparison of Costs for Design to SBCCI and IBC Requirements

EQUIPMENT FOR SBCCI REQ. FOR IBC REQ. SBCCI PRICE IBC PRICE

Fan Powered

Boxes A Thru R

Cable Bracing

(Spec 12)

Cable Bracing

(Spec 12)

$92 Each. + 

$300 Total

for calculation

$92 Each. + 

$300 Total

for calculation

Fans F-1,2,3,4, 

In Line

Isolation Hangers, (Spec 11)

Cable Bracing (Spec 12) 

Isolation Hangers, (Spec 11)

Cable Bracing (Spec 12) 

$408+

$300 Total

for calculation

$616+

$400 Total

for calculation

F-5 Cabinet Anchor Bolts (Spec 19),

Grommets (Spec 14)

Anchor Bolts (Spec 19),

Grommets (Spec 14)

$56+ 

$300 Total 

for calculation 

$56+ $300

Total for

calculation

F- 6, 7, 11, 12, 13, 14, 

15, 17, 18,

Rooftop

Mason Rigid Roofcurb Mason Rigid Roofcurb $43/Foot $43/Foot

F-8, 9, 10, Wall

Fans

Nothing Required Nothing Required
IMPROVING PERFORMANCE TO REDUCE SEISMIC RISK 5-29

astride the active Hayward Fault. In the next thirty years, the USGS predicts there is nearly a 30% likelihood of a magnitude 7 or greater earthquake occurring on the fault (Working Group on California 

Earthquake Probabilities, 2003).

The University considered the protection of its massive investment in 

this facility to be extremely important. It asked the engineer of record 

to consider a higher performance objective than would have been 

required by the building code in force at the time. The goal was that the 

facility should remain occupiable after a design level event, and repair 

time to restore full operability should be measured in weeks not 

months. The engineer employed a state-of-the-art buckling restrained 

(unbonded brace) braced frame system to ensure that damage would 

be kept to a minimum even in a large event that might rupture the 

entire length of the Hayward Fault.

In order to obtain financing for the project, the University had to justify 

the added expense of the enhanced structural scheme. The school 

hired a second engineering firm expert in risk analysis, to help them 

provide the necessary rationale. The firm developed a “baseline” structural scheme that met only the minimum requirements of the building 

code. This system employed conventional concentric braced frames. 

The difference in cost between the two schemes was approximately $1.2 

million, or roughly 1⁄2% of the building cost. They then used nonlinear 

performance-based engineering and risk assessment tools to calculate 

the expected losses due to earthquakes over the life of the building. 

The analysis showed that losses were substantially reduced using the 

enhanced scheme. The overall return on the $1.2 million investment, 

Figure 5-9 New bioengineering laboratory building designed for UC 

Berkeley campus.
5-30 IMPROVING PERFORMANCE TO REDUCE SEISMIC RISK

considering reduction of capital, contents and business interruption 

losses was approximately 11%. Figure 5-10 shows that the reduction in 

business interruption provided the majority of the projected benefits. 

Using a 5% discount rate as a benchmark, the benefit-cost ratio (BCR) 

for the enhancements was over 2 considering a fifty year life. At that discount rate, the BCR reached one at a building life of about 15 years as 

shown in Figure 5-11.

This example suggests that performance-based design can be a very cost 

effective risk management strategy for buildings that generate substantial revenue and for which the owner has a long-term interest. 

5.8 QUALITY CONTROL DURING THE 

CONSTRUCTION PROCESS

Quality control is an important aspect of assuring satisfactory seismic 

performance: the building must be constructed as designed and specified. 

Building owners often interpret construction quality primarily in relation to interior and exterior finishes and materials because these are 

important for “marketing’ in the private sector. It is generally assumed 

that design and construction to meet the applicable building codes will 

Figure 5-10 Comparison of future losses for two different structural system options for new UC Berkeley 

laboratory building. 
IMPROVING PERFORMANCE TO REDUCE SEISMIC RISK 5-31

assure a durable and safe structure. Since structural elements are usually invisible—concealed behind a suspended ceiling, gypsum board or 

exterior cladding—they have little bearing on the perception of building quality. The exterior and interior appearance of the building will 

typically adhere to a company or institutional philosophy; this may be 

very functional for an industrial facility owner, but market trends or 

institutional objectives may influence others. The appearance of all 

facilities may also be influenced by local community design requirements. Decisions about image and quality have a major impact on construction cost, both initial and lifetime. See Section 12.5 for additional 

guidance on assuring design and construction quality.

5.9 RECOMMENDATIONS FOR IMPROVING 

SEISMIC PERFORMANCE

In addition to the specific seismic design issues relating to siting, structural systems, and nonstructural systems, there are some general measures that can be employed to help manage seismic risk by reducing 

either the vulnerability of the facility to earthquake damage, or the consequences of the damage should it occur. These measures include the 

following.

Figure 5-11 Comparison of benefit to cost of using a buckling retrained 

braced frame, instead of a conventional concentric braced 

frame, for new UC Berkeley laboratory building. Cost equals 

cost differential. 
5-32 IMPROVING PERFORMANCE TO REDUCE SEISMIC RISK

❍ Consideration should be given to performance-based design to a 

level beyond Life Safety (typically the level of performance provided 

by provisions of the current seismic design codes) to a level of 

Immediate Occupancy, as discussed in Section 4.3. Institutional, 

public and corporate owners usually have long-term ownership of 

their facilities and a desire for continued operation in the postevent period.

❍ The design professionals in charge of the structural and nonstructural component installation should specify quality assurance 

requirements; the contractor should be required to exercise a high 

degree of quality control; and independent inspection should be 

used to ensure conformance to requirements. 

❍ The design engineer should advise facility owners and manager on 

technical aspects of obtaining insurance to cover potential losses 

including service interruption. It may be possible to negotiate 

reduced premiums with the insurance carrier on the basis of any 

seismic mitigation measures provided beyond the code-minimum 

requirements.

❍ Retainer agreements should be established with engineers and 

architects to provide building inspection services immediately following an earthquake (see Section 2.6 for additional information).

❍ Personal protection and evacuation plans should be developed for 

all staff and students. Regular drills and educational sessions 

should be conducted to ensure proper execution (see Section 2.6 

for additional information).
DESIGN AND PERFORMANCE ISSUES RELATING TO COMMERCIAL OFFICE BUILDINGS 6-1

DESIGN AND PERFORMANCE ISSUES RELATING

TO COMMERCIAL OFFICE BUILDINGS 6

6.1 INTRODUCTION

Commercial office buildings represent a large building segment and 

house the core of American business operations. Corporate headquarters, banks, law firms, consulting firms, accountants, insurance companies, non-profit organizations – the list is almost endless – use office 

space in buildings around the country to house their operations. As 

these companies make decisions about the buildings that they construct 

or office space that they lease, seismic considerations can easily be factored into the decision process.

The following are some unique issues associated with commercial office 

buildings that should be kept in mind during the design and construction phase of new facilities: 

❍ Protection of building occupants is a very high priority.

❍ Occupants are predominantly work-force, with high daytime “8 am 

to 5 pm” occupancy.

❍ Most office building occupants are generally familiar with the characteristics of their building; a small percentage of occupants may be 
6-2 DESIGN AND PERFORMANCE ISSUES RELATING TO COMMERCIAL OFFICE BUILDINGS

disabled to some degree and visitors will generally not be familiar 

with the building. 

❍ Office buildings change their interior layouts frequently, to respond 

to tenant needs, fluctuations in work-force or organizational 

changes.

❍ Ensuring the survival of business records, whether in electronic or 

written form, is essential for continued business operation.

❍ Closure of the building for any length of time represents a serious 

business problem.

6.2 OWNERSHIP, FINANCING, AND 

PROCUREMENT

Commercial buildings may be owner operated, particularly if owned by 

national or global corporations, but many are developer owned (at least 

initially) housing tenant (lease holder) operations. In many instances 

the developer and building designers provide an empty “shell,” which is 

fitted out according to the tenants’ planning, spatial and environmental 

needs; design and construction is generally undertaken by the tenant’s 

consultants and contractors. This tends to split the responsibility for 

interior nonstructural and other risk reduction design and construction 

measures between the building designers and contractor, and a multiplicity of tenant designers and contractors. 

Financing for these facilities is typically through private loans. The 

effective life of an office building is 20 to 30 years, after which major 

renovation and updating is normally necessary. Interior renovation is 

usually on a much shorter interval, particularly for rental office structures.

6.3 PERFORMANCE OF OFFICE BUILDINGS IN 

PAST EARTHQUAKES

The seismic performance of modern office buildings designed to recent 

codes (adopted since the late 1970s) has been good as far as providing 

life safety. However, the recognition by building owners that satisfactory 

life-safety code-level performance may still encompass considerable 

damage (see Figure 6-1), along with repair costs and possible business 

interruption of the building for weeks or even months, even in a moderate earthquake, suggests that some performance-based design strategies 

may be useful.
DESIGN AND PERFORMANCE ISSUES RELATING TO COMMERCIAL OFFICE BUILDINGS 6-3

Where severe structural damage has occurred in commercial office 

buildings, it has generally been to older buildings, often the result of 

configuration irregularities. Figure 6-2 shows an older medical office 

building, which had a vertical irregularity that caused one floor to pancake during the 1994 Northridge earthquake in Southern California; a 

failure resulting from inadequate attachment of heavy nonstructural 

walls in an older 5-story office building is shown in Figure 6-3. 

Newer office buildings have also been damaged, most notably the more 

than 100 welded steel moment-frame buildings (healthcare and residential structures as well as commercial, higher education and industrial buildings) that failed during the 1994 Northridge earthquake. The 

damage occurred primarily at welded beam-to-column connections, 

which had been designed to act in a ductile manner and to be capable 

of withstanding repeated cycles of large inelastic deformation. 

 While no casualties or collapses occurred as a result of these failures, 

the incidence of damage was sufficiently high in regions of strong 

motion to cause wide-spread concern by structural engineers and building officials. Initial investigations showed that in some cases, 50% of the 

connections were broken and very occasionally the beam or column was 

totally fractured. Possible causes focused on incorrect connection 

Figure 6-1 Typical earthquake damage to contents and nonstructural 

components in a modern office building. (photo courtesy of the 

Earthquake Engineering Research Institute)
6-4 DESIGN AND PERFORMANCE ISSUES RELATING TO COMMERCIAL OFFICE BUILDINGS

Figure 6-2 Exterior view of medical office building severely damaged by 

the 1994 Northridge earthquake. (C. Arnold photo)

Figure 6-3 Partially collapsed end-wall in 5-story office building caused by 

severe earthquake ground shaking. (C. Arnold photo)
DESIGN AND PERFORMANCE ISSUES RELATING TO COMMERCIAL OFFICE BUILDINGS 6-5

design, incorrect fabrication, poor welding techniques and materials, 

and the impact of the need for economy on design strategies and construction techniques.

As a result, a large research program was initiated, sponsored primarily by FEMA, to identify the problems and 

arrive at solutions. Many structural specimens were tested 

in university laboratories. New guidelines for these types of 

structures have been developed (SAC, 2000a, b), but remedial measures have resulted in more costly designs and 

extended approval procedures, with the result that many 

engineers have avoided welded steel moment-resistant 

frames in recent projects. 

6.4 PERFORMANCE EXPECTATIONS AND 

REQUIREMENTS

The following guidelines are suggested as seismic performance objectives for commercial office buildings:

❍ Persons within and immediately outside the building must be protected to at least a life safety performance level during design-level 

earthquake ground motions.

❍ Persons should be able to evacuate the building quickly and safely 

after the occurrence of design-level earthquake ground motions.

❍ Emergency systems in the facility should remain operational after 

design-level earthquake ground motions. 

❍ Emergency workers should be able to enter the building immediately after the occurrence of design-level earthquake ground 

motions, encountering minimum interference and danger.

6.5 SEISMIC DESIGN ISSUES

The information in this section summarizes the characteristics of commercial office buildings, notes their relationship to achieving good seismic performance, and suggests seismic risk management solutions that 

should be considered. 

Seismic Hazard and Site Issues

Unusual site conditions, such as a near-source location, poor soil characteristics, or other seismic hazards, may lead to lower performance 

than expected by the code design. If any of these other suspected conditions are geologic hazards, a geotechnical engineering consultant 

Resources for the Seismic Design of New 

Steel Moment-Frame Buildings

1. FEMA 350, Recommended Seismic Design Criteria for 

New Steel Moment-Frame Buildings (SAC, 2000a)

2. FEMA 353, Recommended Specifications and Quality 

Assurance Guidelines for Steel Moment-Frame 

Construction for Seismic Applications (SAC, 2000b)
6-6 DESIGN AND PERFORMANCE ISSUES RELATING TO COMMERCIAL OFFICE BUILDINGS

should conduct a site-specific study. If defects are encountered, an 

alternative site should be considered (if possible), or appropriate soil 

stabilization, foundation and structural design approaches 

should be employed to reduce consequences of ground 

motion beyond code design values, or costly damage caused 

by geologic or other seismic hazards (see Chapter 3 for additional information). If possible, avoid sites that lack redundant access and are vulnerable to bridge or highway closure.

Structural System Issues

Office buildings are typically low- to mid-rise in suburban locations and 

occasionally high-rise in downtown locations of larger cities or in satellite suburban office complexes. Office buildings are intrinsically simple, 

and often are of simple rectangular configuration, not least because 

economy is usually a prime concern for commercial structures. Thus, 

their seismic design can be economical and use simple equivalent lateral force analysis procedures with a good probability of meeting code 

performance expectations as far as life safety is concerned. The protection of nonstructural components, systems and concepts requires structural design to a higher performance level. Configuration irregularities 

may be introduced for image reasons or site constraints in odd-shaped 

urban lots, and the structural design may become more complex and 

expensive. To assist the protection of nonstructural components, special attention should be paid to drift control.

The need for planning flexibility requires minimization of fixed interior 

structural elements and a preference for column-free space. Need for 

flexibility in power and electronic servicing has resulted in increasing 

use of under floor servicing to work cubicles, and structural systems 

have been developed to provide this.

Office buildings typically employ steel or reinforced concrete frames to 

permit maximum planning flexibility. Steel or reinforced concrete 

moment frames provide maximum flexibility, but tend to be expensive 

in high and moderate seismic zones. New guidelines for the design of 

welded moment-frame connections, noted above, have increased the 

cost of these types of structural system, increasing the already common 

use of steel braced frames. Elevator cores duct shafts and toilet rooms, 

being permanent, can be used as shear walls if of suitable size and location. Since these elements are much stiffer than a surrounding frame 

they may be a source of stress concentration and torsion, if asymmetrically located. If severe asymmetry of core locations is essential for planUnusual site conditions, such as a near-source location, 

poor soil characteristics, or other seismic hazards, may 

lead to lower performance than expected by the code 

design.
DESIGN AND PERFORMANCE ISSUES RELATING TO COMMERCIAL OFFICE BUILDINGS 6-7

ning reasons, the cores should not form part of the lateral-force 

resisting system. 

Nonstructural System Issues

The extensive use of frame structures for commercial office buildings, 

together with the tendency for them to be designed to minimum code 

standards, has resulted in structures that are subject to considerable 

drift and motion (sway). The result has been a high level of nonstructural damage, particularly to partitions, ceilings and lighting. This kind 

of damage is costly and its repair is disruptive.

In addition, storage units, free standing work stations and filing cabinets are subject to upset. Excessive drift and motion may also lead to 

damage to roof-top equipment, and localized damage to water systems 

and fire suppression piping and sprinklers; thus the likelihood of water 

damage is greater.

The responsibilities within the design team for nonstructural component support and bracing design should be explicit and clear. The 

checklist for responsibility of nonstructural design in Chapter 12 (see 

Figure 12-5) provides a guide to establishing responsibilities for the 

design, installation, review and observation of all nonstructural components and systems 
6-8 DESIGN AND PERFORMANCE ISSUES RELATING TO COMMERCIAL OFFICE BUILDINGS
DESIGN AND PERFORMANCE ISSUES RELATING TO RETAIL COMMERCIAL FACILITIES 7-1

DESIGN AND PERFORMANCE ISSUES RELATING

TO RETAIL COMMERCIAL FACILITIES 7

7.1 INTRODUCTION

Retail commercial facilities house shops and stores, which contribute a 

signficiant portion of the nation’s economic output. Department store 

malls, big-box retailers, grocery stores and strip malls are but a few of 

the almost endless list of retail operations housed in these types of facilities. As these companies make decisions about the buildings that they 

construct or spaces that they lease, seismic considerations can easily be 

factored into the decision process.

The following are some unique issues associated with retail commercial 

buildings that should be kept in mind during the design and construction phase of new facilities: 

❍ Protection of building occupants is a very high priority.

❍ Occupants are predominantly work-force and shoppers; shopping 

malls and large retail stores typically are open from about 10 am to 9 
7-2 DESIGN AND PERFORMANCE ISSUES RELATING TO RETAIL COMMERCIAL FACILITIES

pm for 7 days a week, typically with higher occupancy at weekends. 

“Big box” stores also have a high evening occupancy.

❍ Most shoppers are generally familiar with the characteristics of the 

shopping malls stores they frequent, but large retail stores are confusing to the first-time shopper. Familiarity with exit locations and 

egress routes is questionable. 

❍ Retail stores, particularly department stores, change their interior 

layouts frequently to respond to market changes and retailing fashions. Big box stores generally retain a simple aisle layout, though 

some large electronic and furniture stores employ subdivided and 

clustered layouts related to groups of merchandise. 

❍ Ensuring the survival of business records, whether in electronic or 

written form, is essential for continued business operation.

7.2 OWNERSHIP, FINANCING, AND 

PROCUREMENT

Retail malls are generally developer sponsored. Department stores and 

“big boxes” are developed by regional or national owners; their design 

and construction are independent of the retail mall developments in 

which they may be located. In retail malls, the mall developer designs 

and constructs “shell” structures in which space is leased to retail store 

owners who use their own design and subcontracting teams to fit out 

the space to their requirements. This tends to split the responsibility for 

interior nonstructural and other risk-reduction design and construction 

measures between the building designers and contractor, and a multitude of tenant store designers and contractors. 

Financing for these facilities is typically through private loans. The 

effective life of a retail mall or store is about 20 years, after which major 

renovation and updating is necessary. Interior renovation is usually on 

a much shorter interval.

Shopping malls and stores are generally constructed using a single contractor selected by competitive bid. Large shopping malls may have a 

number of contractors working on the site because each department 

store will usually have its own general contractor and subcontractors. 

Low cost and very rapid construction with reliable achievement of construction schedules are prime considerations. The opening of new 

retail facilities is often timed to meet key shopping periods such as 

Christmas or opening of the school year.
DESIGN AND PERFORMANCE ISSUES RELATING TO RETAIL COMMERCIAL FACILITIES 7-3

7.3 PERFORMANCE OF COMMERCIAL RETAIL 

FACILITIES IN PAST EARTHQUAKES

There has been considerable damage to retail facilities of all sizes in 

recent earthquakes. 

In the Northridge earthquake of 1994 near Los Angeles, a large 

regional shopping mall with 1.5 million sq.ft. of retail space suffered 

severe damage and was closed for 18 months. Some 200 mall stores 

were closed and six department stores under independent ownership 

received varying amounts of damage. One department store suffered a 

partial collapse, and was demolished and replaced (Figure 7-1). The 

other stores were repaired. Other shopping malls in the area suffered 

damage, but their performance was considerably better. The Topanga 

Plaza Mall in Canoga Park, approximately 5 miles from the epicenter, 

was built in the early 60’s but was seismically upgraded in 1971. Structural damage was confined to cracking of reinforced masonry shear 

walls and damage to concrete columns in infilled shear walls. Nonstructural damage was significant, however, ranging from damage to floor, 

ceiling and wall finishes to frequently shattered or dislodged store-front 

glass panels. 

Figure 7-1 Severe damage to a department store severely shaken by the 

1994 Northridge earthquake. Shear failure between the waffle 

slabs and columns caused the collapse of several floors. (photo 

courtesy of the Earthquake Engineering Research Institute.)
7-4 DESIGN AND PERFORMANCE ISSUES RELATING TO RETAIL COMMERCIAL FACILITIES

7.4 PERFORMANCE EXPECTATIONS AND 

REQUIREMENTS

The following guidelines are suggested as seismic performance objectives for retail facilities: 

❍ Staff and shoppers within and immediately outside retail stores must 

be protected to at least a life-safety performance level during designlevel earthquake ground motions.

❍ Emergency systems in the facility should remain operational after 

the occurrence of design-level earthquake ground motions.

❍ Shoppers and staff should be able to evacuate the building quickly 

and safely after the occurrence of design-level earthquake ground 

motions.

❍ Emergency workers should be able to enter the building immediately after the occurrence of design-level earthquake ground 

motions, encountering minimum interference and danger.

7.5 SEISMIC DESIGN ISSUES

The information in this section summarizes the characteristics of retail 

facilities, notes their relationship to achieving good seismic performance, and suggests seismic risk management solutions that should be 

considered. 

Seismic Hazard and Site Issues

Unusual site conditions, such as a near-source location, poor 

soil characteristics, or other seismic hazards, may lead to 

lower performance than expected by the code design. If any 

of these other suspected conditions are geologic hazards, a 

geotechnical engineering consultant should conduct a sitespecific study. If defects are encountered, an alternative site 

should be considered (if possible) or appropriate soil stabilization, 

foundation and structural design approaches should be employed to 

reduce consequences of ground motion beyond code design values, or 

costly damage caused by geologic or other seismic hazards (see Chapter 

3 for additional information). If possible, avoid sites that lack redundant access and are vulnerable to bridge or highway closure.

Structural System Issues

Retail facilities are usually one or two stories; mall structures and “big 

boxes” are usually light steel frames or mixed steel frame/wood/conUnusual site conditions, such as a near-source location, 

poor soil characteristics, or other seismic hazards, may 

lead to lower performance than expected by the code 

design.
DESIGN AND PERFORMANCE ISSUES RELATING TO RETAIL COMMERCIAL FACILITIES 7-5

crete/concrete masonry structures. Reinforced concrete block 

masonry perimeter walls often provide lateral resistance; for these systems, connections of roof diaphragms to walls are critical. The large 

building size and long-span light-frame load bearing structures of many 

of these facilities often lead to large drifts (or sway) during earthquake 

shaking. When designed to code minimums these drifts may be excessive and cause nonstructural damage, particularly to ceilings and partitions.

Retail buildings are intrinsically simple in their architectural/structural 

configuration, and basically are large open box-like structures with few 

interior walls and partitions. This enables their structural design to be 

simple and their seismic design can be carried out using the basic equivalent lateral force analysis procedures with a good probability of meeting code performance expectations as far as life safety is concerned. 

The desire for low cost, however, coupled with a tendency to meet only 

the minimum code requirements, sometimes results in inadequately 

engineered and poorly constructed structures. The protection of nonstructural components, systems and contents requires structural design 

to a higher performance level. Configuration irregularities are sometimes introduced for image reasons and the structural design may 

become more complex and expensive.

Nonstructural System Issues

The extensive use of light-steel-frame structures for retail facilities, 

together with the tendency for them to be designed to minimum codes 

and standards, has resulted in structures that are subject to considerable 

drift and motion. The result has been a high level of nonstructural 

damage, particularly to ceilings and lighting. This kind of damage is 

costly and its repair is disruptive.

In most “big box” stores the building structure forms only a weatherproof cover and is lightly loaded. Often there is no suspended ceiling 

and light fixtures are hung directly from the building’s structure. The 

merchandise is stacked on metal storage racks, which provide vertical 

and lateral support. These racks are supplied and installed by specialist 

vendors. The correct sizing and bracing of these racks is critical 

because the merchandise is often heavy and located at a high elevation. 

Even if the racks remain, material may be displaced and fall on the 

aisles, which are often crowded. 

More upscale department stores have complete suspended ceilings and 

often have elaborate settings for the display of merchandise. These can 

be hazardous to staff and shoppers. 
7-6 DESIGN AND PERFORMANCE ISSUES RELATING TO RETAIL COMMERCIAL FACILITIES

Excessive drift and motion (building sway) may also lead to damage to 

roof-top equipment and localized damage to water systems and fire suppression piping and sprinklers. 

The responsibilities within the design team for nonstructural component support and bracing design should be explicit and clear. The 

checklist for responsibility of nonstructural design in Chapter 12 (see 

Figure 12-5) provides a guide to establishing responsibilities for the 

design, installation, review and observation of all nonstructural components and systems. 
DESIGN AND PERFORMANCE ISSUES RELATING TO LIGHT MANUFACTURING FACILITIES 8-1

DESIGN AND PERFORMANCE ISSUES RELATING TO

LIGHT MANUFACTURING FACILITIES 8

8.1 INTRODUCTION

This chapter addresses a broad range of facilities used for industries 

engaged in the manufacturing assembly, testing and packaging of specialized products within workbench production areas. Much of this 

manufacturing is associated with the electronics, or “high-tech” industry, and in some cases, special environments such as “clean-rooms” are 

required. Most light manufacturing operations are relatively new and 

take place in recently designed and constructed buildings using modern equipment installations.

The following are some unique issues associated with light manufacturing facilities that should be kept in mind during the design and construction phase of new facilities:

❍ Protection of building occupants is a very high priority. 
8-2 DESIGN AND PERFORMANCE ISSUES RELATING TO LIGHT MANUFACTURING FACILITIES

❍ Building occupancy is relatively low, except in buildings with major 

production or assembly functions. Occupants are predominantly 

work-force, with high daytime “8 am to 5 pm” occupancy, although 

favorable market conditions may entail the use of additional workshifts. Visitors are few in number.

❍ Ensuring the survival of production, testing and other expensive 

equipment is an important economic concern. 

❍ Closure of the building for any length of time represents a very serious business problem, which will involve loss of revenue and possibly loss of market share. 

❍ Most manufacturing building occupants are generally familiar with 

the characteristics of their building; a small percentage may be disabled to some degree. 

❍ Frequent provision must be made for the production of new products and the removal of existing equipment and its replacement.

❍ Ensuring the survival of business records, whether in electronic or 

written form, is essential for continued business operation.

8.2 OWNERSHIP, FINANCING AND 

PROCUREMENT

Many light manufacturing facilities are owner developed, particularly if 

owned by national or global corporations, but some are also developer 

owned providing for tenant operations. Some large corporations may 

use a developer to build facilities that suit their operations, and thus 

avoid becoming involved in possibly troublesome development and 

building operations. Buildings that are constructed by developers as 

speculation tend to be occupied by start-up or young companies. In 

these instances the developer and building designers provide an empty 

“shell,” which is fitted out according to the tenants’ planning, spatial 

and environmental needs; design and construction is generally undertaken by the tenant’s designers and subcontractors. This tends to split 

the responsibility for interior nonstructural and other risk-reduction 

design and construction measures between the building designers and 

contractor, and the tenant designers and contractors.

Financing for these facilities is typically through private loans. The 

effective life of the building may be about 50 years, particularly in the 

electronic industry. Light manufacturing buildings are generally constructed using a single contractor selected by competitive bid. Low cost 

and very rapid construction, with reliable achievement of construction 

schedules, are prime considerations.
DESIGN AND PERFORMANCE ISSUES RELATING TO LIGHT MANUFACTURING FACILITIES 8-3

8.3 PERFORMANCE OF LIGHT 

MANUFACTURING FACILITIES IN PAST 

EARTHQUAKES

Starting in the late 1950s larger light manufacturing buildings have 

been predominantly tilt-up structures, particularly in California. In seismic regions the perimeter precast walls were used as shear walls and 

roof structures were generally glued-laminated beams and plywood diaphragms. In the 1964 Alaska earthquake and the 1971 San Fernando 

(Los Angeles) event, performance of these buildings was poor, with 

considerable damage being sustained. The most common type of failure was to the wall/diaphragm anchors, but large out-of-plane movement of the panels, out-of-plane bending cracks in pilasters at 

mezzanine levels, and roof separations were all encountered and many 

roof collapses occurred. Due to the relatively large size of these buildings roof collapses were localized, rarely extending beyond one or two 

bays, and the buildings were sparsely occupied, so casualties were few. 

(Figure 8-1)

Following the 1971 San Fernando earthquake code changes were introduced, with the result that subsequent performance was improved. During the 1994 Northridge earthquake near Los Angeles, there were a 

number of failures of tilt-up structures and there were some collapsed 

wall panels along the sides of buildings resulting in partial roof collapse. 

Figure 8-1 Roof and wall collapse of tilt-up building during the 1994 

Northridge earthquake. (Photo courtesy of the Earthquake Engineering Research Institute)
8-4 DESIGN AND PERFORMANCE ISSUES RELATING TO LIGHT MANUFACTURING FACILITIES

Changes to wall anchorage requirements were introduced in the 1997 

Uniform Building Code. 

8.4 PERFORMANCE EXPECTATIONS AND 

REQUIREMENTS

The following guidelines are suggested as seismic performance objectives for light manufacturing facilities:

❍ Persons within and immediately outside manufacturing facilities 

must be protected at least to a life-safety performance level during 

design-level earthquake ground motions. 

❍ Building occupants should be able to evacuate the building quickly 

and safely after the occurrence of design-level earthquake ground 

motions.

❍ Emergency systems in the facility should remain operational after 

the occurrence of design-level earthquake ground motions. 

❍ Emergency workers should be able to enter the building immediately after the occurrence of design-level earthquake ground 

motions, encountering minimum interference and danger.

❍ Key manufacturing equipment, supplies and products should be 

protected from damage.

❍ In “high-tech” manufacturing facilities most services and utilities 

should be available within three hours of the occurrence of designlevel earthquake ground motions.

❍ There should be no release of hazardous substances as a result of 

the occurrence of design-level earthquake ground motions.

8.5 SEISMIC DESIGN ISSUES

The information in this section summarizes the characteristics of light 

manufacturing facilities, notes their relationship to achieving good seismic performance, and suggests seismic risk management solutions that 

should be considered. 

Seismic Hazard and Site Issues

Unusual site conditions, such as a near-source location, poor 

soil characteristics, or other seismic hazards, may lead to 

lower performance than expected by the code design. If any 

of these other suspected conditions are geological hazards, a 

geotechnical engineering consultant should conduct a siteUnusual site conditions, such as a near-source location, 

poor soil characteristics, or other seismic hazards, may 

lead to lower performance than expected by the code 

design.
DESIGN AND PERFORMANCE ISSUES RELATING TO LIGHT MANUFACTURING FACILITIES 8-5

specific study. If defects are encountered, an alternative site should be 

considered (if possible) or appropriate soil stabilization, foundation 

and structural design approaches should be employed to reduce consequences of ground motion beyond code design values, or costly damage 

caused by geologic or other seismic hazards (see Chapter 3 for additional information). If possible, avoid sites that lack redundant access 

and are vulnerable to bridge or highway closure.

Structural System Issues

Light manufacturing facilities are usually one story; sometimes office/

administrative accommodation is provided in a mezzanine space. 

There has been increasing use of light steel frames and steel deck structure for roofs and mezzanines. Most large buildings now use braced 

steel frame structures. Exteriors may be of masonry or metal insulated 

panels.

Manufacturing buildings are intrinsically simple in their architectural/

structural configuration, and basically are large open box-like structures 

with few interior walls and partitions. This enables their structural 

design to be simple, and their seismic design can be carried out using 

the basic equivalent lateral force analysis procedures with a good probability of meeting code performance expectations as far as life safety is 

concerned. The desire for low cost, however, coupled with a tendency to 

meet only the minimum code requirements sometimes results in inadequately engineered and poorly constructed structures, The protection 

of valuable equipment and contents requires structural design to a 

higher performance level. 

The large building size and long-span light frame load bearing structures of many of these facilities often lead to large drifts (or sway). 

When designed to code minimums these drifts may be excessive and 

cause nonstructural damage, particularly to ceilings and partitions.

Nonstructural System Issues

Continued operation is particularly dependent on nonstructural components and systems, including purchased equipment, much of which is often of great sensitivity and cost. 

Many specialized utilities must be provided, some of which 

involve the storage of hazardous substances, such as pharmaceuticals, or 

hazardous gases. These must be protected against spillage during an 

earthquake. Distribution systems for hazardous gases must be well supported and braced. 

Continued operation is particularly dependent on 

nonstructural components and systems
8-6 DESIGN AND PERFORMANCE ISSUES RELATING TO LIGHT MANUFACTURING FACILITIES

The extensive use of light-steel-frame structures for manufacturing facilities, together with the tendency for them to be designed to minimum 

codes and standards, has resulted in structures that are subject to considerable drift and motion. As a result, recent earthquakes have caused 

a high level of nonstructural damage, particularly to ceilings and lighting. This kind of damage is costly and its repair is disruptive.

Research and production areas may need special design attention to 

specialized equipment services and materials to ensure continued production and delivery.

In most manufacturing facilities the building structure forms only a 

weatherproof cover and is lightly loaded. Often there is no suspended 

ceiling and light fixtures are hung directly from the building’s structure. In storage areas, materials are stacked on metal storage racks that 

provide their own vertical and lateral support. These racks are supplied and installed by specialist vendors. The correct sizing and bracing 

of these racks are critical if the materials are heavy and located at a high 

elevation. Even if the racks remain stable, material may be displaced 

and fall on the aisles or on equipment 

Storage units, free standing work stations, and filing cabinets are also 

subject to upset. Excessive drift and motion may lead to damage to rooftop equipment and localized damage to water systems and fire suppression piping and sprinklers. 

The responsibilities within the design team for nonstructural component support and bracing design should be explicit and clear. The 

checklist for responsibility of nonstructural design in Chapter 12 (see 

Figure 12-5) provides a guide to establishing responsibilities for the 

design, installation, review and observation of all nonstructural components and systems. 
DESIGN AND PERFORMANCE ISSUES RELATING TO HEALTHCARE FACILITIES 9-1

DESIGN AND PERFORMANCE ISSUES RELATING

TO HEALTHCARE FACILITIES 9

9.1 INTRODUCTION

Healthcare facilities are the places where America goes for treatment 

for most of its healthcare and are the places that need to be available to 

them after being injured in an earthquake. Regional or local hospitals, 

outpatient clinics, long-term care facilities are all examples of healthcare facilities that serve in this role. As healthcare companies make decisions about the buildings that they construct, seismic considerations can 

easily be factored into the decision process.

The following are some unique issues associated with healthcare facilities that should be kept in mind during the design and construction 

phase of new facilities:

❍ Protection of patients and healthcare staff is a very high priority.

❍ Healthcare occupancy is a 24 hour/7 day-per-week function.

❍ Acute-care hospitals have a large patient population that is immobile and helpless, for whom a safe environment is essential. This particularly requires a safe structure and prevention of falling objects.
9-2 DESIGN AND PERFORMANCE ISSUES RELATING TO HEALTHCARE FACILITIES

❍ Hospitals are critical for emergency treatment of earthquake victims 

and recovery efforts.

❍ Medical staff has a crucial role to play in the immediate emergency 

and during the recovery period.

❍ Ensuring the survival of all equipment and supplies used for emergency diagnosis and treatment is essential for patient care.

❍ Ensuring the survival of medical and other records, whether in electronic or written form, is essential for continued patient care.

❍ Closure of hospitals for any length of time represents a very serious 

community problem exacerbated by the possibility of the loss of 

healthcare personnel who are in high demand or unable to work 

because of personal earthquake-related consequences (e.g., their 

own injury).

❍ Many hospitals are not only service providers but also profit or nonprofit businesses and, since their operating costs and revenues are 

high, every day that the facility is out of operation represents serious 

financial loss. 

9.2 OWNERSHIP, FINANCING, AND 

PROCUREMENT

Healthcare facilities are typically developed by a private non-profit or 

for-profit hospital corporation or an HMO (health maintenance organization). Many are also developed by a local, state or federal government 

agency. Financing of privately owned facilities is typically by private 

loan, possibly with some state or federal assistance; for-profit hospitals 

may issue stock when access to capital is required, and hospitals also 

conduct fund-raising activities, a large part of which assist in capital 

improvement program financing. State and local public institutions are 

financed by state and local bond issues. Non-profit hospitals sometime 

issue bonds to the public.

Private institutions have no restrictions on methods of procurement; 

projects may be negotiated, conventionally bid, use construction management or design–build. Public work must be competitively bid. Typically, contracts are placed for all site and building work (structural and 

nonstructural). Medical equipment and furnishings and their installation are purchased separately from specialized vendors.

Hospitals typically emphasize high quality of design and construction 

and long facility life, though all institutions are also budgeting conscious. An attractive and well equipped hospital site and building cam-
DESIGN AND PERFORMANCE ISSUES RELATING TO HEALTHCARE FACILITIES 9-3

pus are seen as an important asset, particularly by private institutions 

that are in a competitive situation.

9.3 PERFORMANCE OF HEALTHCARE FACILITIES 

IN PAST EARTHQUAKES

The most significant experience of seismic performance of healthcare 

facilities in recent earthquakes was that of the Northridge (Los Angeles), California, earthquake of 1994. The San Fernando, California, 

earthquake of 1971 seriously damaged several medical facilities, including the then brand-new Los Angeles County Olive View Hospital. Most 

of the fatalities in this earthquake occurred in hospitals, principally the 

result of the collapse of an older unreinforced masonry Veterans Hospital building. In response to the recognized need for superior seismic 

performance by hospitals, the California Legislature enacted the Alfred 

E. Alquist Hospital Facilities Seismic Safety Act, which became effective 

in 1973. This Act mandated enhanced levels of design and construction. The Act proved very effective in limiting structural damage in the 

Northridge earthquake; no post–Act hospitals were red-tagged (posted 

with a red UNSAFE postearthquake safety inspection placard) and only 

one was yellow-tagged (posted with a yellow RESTRICTED USE placard). However, nonstructural damage was extensive, resulting in the 

temporary closure of several of the post-1973 buildings and the evacuation of patients.

Long-term closure only occurred in hospitals affected by the 1994 

Northridge earthquake when there was structural damage; this only 

affected some pre-1973 hospitals. While structural damage can cause 

severe financial losses, the more important loss of ability to serve the 

community during the hours following the earthquake is more likely to 

be caused by nonstructural damage. At Holy Cross Medical Center, for 

example, damage to the air handling system and water damage from 

broken sprinklers and other piping required evacuation, but most services were restored within a week and paramedic units opened within 3 

weeks (Figure 9-1). At Olive View Hospital (the replacement for the 

hospital damaged in the 1971 San Fernando earthquake) the structure 

was virtually undamaged (Figure 9-2), even though it was subject to horizontal ground accelerations approaching 1 g (g = acceleration of gravity). Broken piping and leakage, however, caused the evacuation of all 

patients and closure for one week. 

During the 1994 Northridge earthquake, most nonstructural damage in 

healthcare facilities occurred to water related components. Damage 
9-4 DESIGN AND PERFORMANCE ISSUES RELATING TO HEALTHCARE FACILITIES

Figure 9-1 Exterior view of Holy Cross Medical Center, which was 

evacuated after the 1994 Northridge earthquake due to 

damage to the HVAC system. (photo courtesy of the Earthquake 

Engineering Research Institute)

Figure 9-2 Aerial view of Olive View Hospital, which sustained no structural 

damage during the 1994 Northridge earthquake, but was 

closed for a short while after the earthquake because of water 

leakage from broken sprinklers and waterlines. (photo courtesy 

of the Earthquake Engineering Research Institute)
DESIGN AND PERFORMANCE ISSUES RELATING TO HEALTHCARE FACILITIES 9-5

was caused by leakage from sprinklers and domestic water and chilled 

water lines; water shortages were caused by lack of sufficient on-site storage. Twenty-one buildings at healthcare facilities suffered broken nonsprinkler water lines with most of the damage in small lines, less than 2-

1/2 inches in diameter, for which bracing was not required by code. 

Sprinkler line breakage occurred at 35 buildings, all of which was 

caused by small unbraced branch lines.

Following the 1994 Northridge earthquake, a new state law was passed 

that required all hospitals that are deemed at “significant risk of collapse” to be rebuilt, retrofitted or closed by 2008, and all acute care hospitals to meet stringent safety codes by 2030. All hospital plans are to be 

reviewed by the Office of Statewide Health Planning and Development 

(OSHPD). The 1972 and 1994 hospital legislation is similar in scope to 

the 1933 and 1976 Field legislation enacted to protect schools, which is 

generally regarded to have been very successful in achieving its objectives of providing earthquake-safe schools. 

9.4 PERFORMANCE EXPECTATIONS AND 

REQUIREMENTS

The following guidelines are suggested as seismic performance objectives for healthcare facilities:

❍ Patients, staff and visitors within and immediately outside healthcare facilities must be protected at least to a life-safety performance 

level during design-level earthquake ground motions.

❍ Safe spaces in the facility (which, depending on climatic conditions, 

may be outside) should be available for emergency care and triage 

activities within two hours of the occurrence of design-level earthquake ground motions.

❍ Most hospital services should be available within three hours of the 

occurrence of design-level earthquake ground motions.

❍ Emergency systems in the facility should remain operational after 

the occurrence of design-level earthquake ground motions. 

❍ The facility services and utilities should be self-sufficient for four 

days after the occurrence of design-level earthquake ground 

motions.

❍ Patients and staff should be able to evacuate the building quickly 

and safely after the occurrence of design-level earthquake ground 

motions.
9-6 DESIGN AND PERFORMANCE ISSUES RELATING TO HEALTHCARE FACILITIES

❍ Emergency workers should be able to enter the building immediately after the occurrence of design-level earthquake ground 

motions, encountering minimum interference and danger.

❍ There should be no release of hazardous substances as a result of 

the occurrence of design-level earthquake ground motions.

9.5 SEISMIC DESIGN ISSUES

The information in this section summarizes the characteristics of 

healthcare facilities, notes their relationship to achieving good seismic 

performance, and suggests seismic risk management solutions that 

should be considered. 

Seismic Hazard and Site Issues

Unusual site conditions, such as a near-source location, poor 

soil characteristics, or other seismic hazards, may lead to 

lower performance than expected by the code design. If any 

of these other suspected conditions are geologic hazards, a 

geotechnical engineering consultant should conduct a sitespecific study. If defects are encountered, an alternative site 

should be considered (if possible) or appropriate soil stabilization, 

foundation and structural design approaches should be employed to 

reduce consequences of ground motion beyond code design values, or 

costly damage caused by geologic or other seismic hazards (see Chapter 

3 for additional information). If possible, avoid sites that lack redundant access and are vulnerable to bridge or highway closure.

Structural System Issues

Healthcare facilities are of great variety and size, encompassing all types 

of structure and services. Large hospitals accommodate several occupancy types. Acute care is a highly serviced short-term residential occupancy, and many diagnostic, laboratory and treatment areas require 

high-tech facilities and services. Service areas such as laundry, food service receiving, storage and distribution are akin to industrial functions, 

and administration includes typical office, communication and recordkeeping functions. 

Smaller healthcare facilities may encompass one or more functions 

such as predominantly longer residential care, or specialized treatment 

such as physical rehabilitation or dialysis. This functional variety influences some structural choices but the structure, as in all buildings, plays 

a background role in providing a safe and secure support for the facility 

Unusual site conditions, such as a near-source location, 

poor soil characteristics, or other seismic hazards, may 

lead to lower performance than expected by the code 

design.
DESIGN AND PERFORMANCE ISSUES RELATING TO HEALTHCARE FACILITIES 9-7

activities. Since continued operation is a desirable performance objective, structural design beyond life safety is necessary and design for both 

structural integrity and drift control need special attention 

to provide an added level of reliability for the nonstructural 

components and systems.

The heavy and complex service demands of hospitals 

require greater floor-to-floor heights than for other buildings (such as offices) to provide more space above a suspended ceiling to accommodate the services. A number of 

hospitals have been designed with “interstitial” service space—a complete floor inserted above each functional floor to accommodate the 

services and make their initial installation and future change easier to 

accomplish (see Figure 9-3).

Because of their functional complexity, hospitals often have complex 

and irregular configurations. Broadly speaking, smaller hospitals are 

planned as horizontal layouts; large hospitals often have a vertical tower 

for the patient rooms elevated above horizontally planned floors for the 

diagnostic, treatment and administrative services. Emergency services 

are generally planned at the ground floor level with direct access for 

emergency vehicles. The structural design should focus on reducing 

configuration irregularities to the greatest extent possible and ensuring 

direct load paths. Framing systems need careful design to provide the 

great variety of spatial types necessary without introducing localized 

irregularities.

Figure 9-3 Sketch showing typical interstitial space for nonstructural 

components and systems in new hospitals.

Since continued operation is a desirable performance 

objective for healthcare facilities, structural design beyond 

life safety is necessary and design for both structural 

integrity and drift control need special attention to provide 

an added level of reliability for the nonstructural 

components and systems.
9-8 DESIGN AND PERFORMANCE ISSUES RELATING TO HEALTHCARE FACILITIES

Nonstructural System Issues

As noted above excessive structural motion and drift may cause damage 

to ceilings, partitions, light fixtures, and glazing. In addition, storage 

units, library shelving, and filing cabinets may be hazardous if not 

braced. Excessive drift and motion may also lead to damage to roof-top 

equipment, and localized damage to water systems and fire suppression 

piping and sprinklers. Heavy equipment such as shop machinery, kilns 

and heavy mechanical and electrical equipment may also be displaced, 

and be hazards to occupants in close proximity. 

Continued operation is particularly dependent on nonstructural components and systems, including purchased equipment, much of which is 

often of great sensitivity and cost. Many specialized utilities must be 

provided, some of which involve the storage of hazardous substances, 

such as pharmaceuticals and oxygen in tanks. These must be protected 

against spillage during an earthquake. Distribution systems for hazardous gases must be well supported and braced. Water must be provided 

to many spaces, unlike an office building, where the provision is much 

more limited, and thus the likelihood of water damage in healthcare 

facilities is greater.

The responsibilities within the design team for nonstructural component support and bracing design should be explicit and clear. The 

checklist for responsibility of nonstructural design in Chapter 12 (see 

Figure 12-5) provides a guide to establishing responsibilities for the 

design, installation, review and observation of all nonstructural components and systems. 
DESIGN AND PERFORMANCE ISSUES RELATING TO LOCAL SCHOOLS (K-12) 10-1

DESIGN AND PERFORMANCE ISSUES RELATING

TO LOCAL SCHOOLS (K-12) 10

10.1 INTRODUCTION

Primary and secondary (kindergarten through grade 12) schools house 

thousands of America’s children every school day. These buildings 

come in a variety of configurations and sizes and are constructed from 

all types of structural materials like steel, concrete, masonry and wood. 

As school districts make decisions about the buildings that they construct, seismic considerations can easily be factored into the decision 

process.

The following are some unique issues associated with kindergarten 

through grade 12 (K-12) schools that should be kept in mind during 

the design and construction phase of new facilities: 

❍ Protection of children is an emotional societal issue and has very 

high priority.
10-2 DESIGN AND PERFORMANCE ISSUES RELATING TO LOCAL SCHOOLS (K-12)

❍ Occupancy density is one of the highest of any building type (typically 1 person per 20 square feet by code), with the exception of 

summer months, and after an earthquake, children are likely to be 

very frightened, creating difficulties for evacuation of a damaged 

structure.

❍ Occupancy by children is required by law, thus the moral and legal 

responsibilities for properly protecting the occupants are very great. 

❍ School facilities are critical for immediate earthquake disaster shelter and recovery efforts.

❍ Closure of schools for any length of time represents a very serious 

community problem, and major school damage can have long-term 

economic and social effects.

10.2 OWNERSHIP, FINANCING, AND 

PROCUREMENT

Public schools are programmed and developed by the local school district. Financing is typically by local or state bond issues, possibly with 

the addition of federal assistance.

Public work must be competitively bid. Typically, contracts are placed 

for all site and building work, both structural and nonstructural. Equipment and furnishings and their installation are purchased separately 

from specialized vendors.

School districts typically try to emphasize high quality of design and 

construction and long facility life, though all districts are necessarily 

very budget conscious. 

10.3 PERFORMANCE OF LOCAL SCHOOLS IN 

PAST EARTHQUAKES

There has been surprisingly little severe structural damage to schools, 

except in the Long Beach, California, earthquake of 1933, and there 

have been very few casualties. In California, no school child has been 

killed or seriously injured since 1933. This good fortune results primarily because all major California earthquakes since 1925 have occurred 

outside school hours.

Damage in the Long Beach earthquake was so severe that it was realized 

that if the schools had been occupied there would have been many 

casualties. As a result, the State passed the Field Act within a month 

after the earthquake. This act required that all public school buildings 

be designed by a California licensed architect or structural engineer, all 
DESIGN AND PERFORMANCE ISSUES RELATING TO LOCAL SCHOOLS (K-12) 10-3

plans must be checked by the Office of the State Architect, and construction must be continuously inspected by qualified independent 

inspectors retained by the local school board. The State Architect set 

up a special division, staffed by structural engineers, to administer the 

provisions of the Act. While time of day limited casualties, the Field Act, 

which is still enforced today, has greatly reduced structural damage. 

In the Northridge, California, earthquake of 1994, State inspectors 

posted red UNSAFE placards on 24 school buildings, and yellow 

RESTRICTED USE placards on 82, although this was later considered 

overly conservative. No structural elements collapsed. There was, however, considerable nonstructural damage as shown in Figure 10-1. This 

was costly to repair, caused closure of a number of schools and, if the 

schools had been in session, would have caused casualties. The Field 

Act focused on structural design and construction, and only recently 

were nonstructural components included in the scope of the Act. 

10.4 PERFORMANCE EXPECTATIONS AND 

REQUIREMENTS

Students and teachers within and outside elementary and secondary 

school buildings must be protected during an earthquake. Any damage 

that jeopardizes the provision of educational services impacts not only 

the facility but also the community, since the school is an important 

Figure 10-1 Nonstructural damage at Northridge Junior High where lights 

fell onto desks during the 1994 Northridge earthquake. (photo 

courtesy of the Earthquake Engineering Research Institute)
10-4 DESIGN AND PERFORMANCE ISSUES RELATING TO LOCAL SCHOOLS (K-12)

community center. Primary and secondary educational establishments 

are important community service providers and service interruption is a 

major problem. In addition to these general seismic performance 

expectations, the following guidelines are suggested as seismic performance objectives for elementary and secondary schools:

❍ The school should be capable of substantial use for shelter purposes 

within 3 hours of the occurrence of earthquake design-level ground 

motions.

❍ Emergency systems in the school should remain operational after 

the occurrence of earthquake design-level ground motions. 

❍ Students and teachers should be able to evacuate the school quickly 

and safely after the occurrence of earthquake design-level ground 

motions.

❍ Emergency workers should be able to enter the school immediately 

after the occurrence of earthquake design-level ground motions, 

encountering minimum interference and danger.

10.5 SEISMIC DESIGN ISSUES

The information in this section summarizes the characteristics of local 

schools (K-12), notes their relationship to achieving good seismic performance, and suggests seismic risk management solutions that should 

be considered.

Seismic Hazard and Siting Issues

Unusual site conditions, such as a near-source location, poor 

soil characteristics, or other seismic hazards, may lead to 

lower performance than expected by the code design. If any 

of these suspected conditions are geologic hazards, a geotechnical engineering consultant should conduct a site-specific study. If defects are encountered, an alternative site 

should be considered (if possible) or appropriate soil stabilization, 

foundation and structural design approaches should be employed to 

reduce consequences of ground motion beyond code design values, or 

costly damage caused by geologic or other seismic hazards (see 

Chapter 3 for additional information). If possible, avoid sites that have 

restricted access.

Unusual site conditions, such as a near-source location, 

poor soil characteristics, or other seismic hazards, may 

lead to lower performance than expected by the code 

design.
DESIGN AND PERFORMANCE ISSUES RELATING TO LOCAL SCHOOLS (K-12) 10-5

Structural System Issues

Schools are a wide variety of sizes, from one-room rural school houses to 

2000-student high schools. Each size will have its own code requirements and cost implications. A wide variety of structural approaches are 

available and careful selection must be made to meet the educational 

and financial program. 

Traditional schools with rows of standard classrooms are relatively simple buildings, with few partitions since the structural walls can provide 

much of the space division. Classroom walls can act efficiently as shear 

walls but the school is likely to have very limited flexibility for space 

changes. The structure, as in all buildings, plays a background role in 

providing a safe and secure support for the facility activities. The structural problems are, however, relatively simple, and a well designed and 

constructed school should provide a safe environment.

Newer schools are usually one or two stories with light steel frame or 

mixed steel frame, wood and concrete or concrete masonry structures. 

When designed to code minimum requirements, these light and relatively long-span structures may have excessive drift characteristics. 

Excessive motion and drift may cause damage to ceilings, light fixtures, 

partitions, glazing, roof-top equipment, utilities and fire suppression 

piping. The structural design should pay special attention to drift control and to appropriate support of vulnerable nonstructural components and systems.

Urban schools are sometimes mid-rise (up to 4 stories), with reinforced 

masonry, reinforced concrete, or steel frame structures. For these structures, configuration irregularities, such as soft stories, may become critical. The structural design should focus on reducing configuration 

irregularities and ensuring direct load paths. 

Larger schools may have long-span gymnasia or multi-use spaces in 

which wall-to-diaphragm connections are critical. These larger spaces 

may be used for post-disaster shelters. Seismic resistance must typically 

be provided by perimeter frames or walls. The structural design should 

pay special attention to reducing perimeter opening irregularities, and 

providing direct load path and appropriate structural connections. 

Larger schools also often tend to become more complex in layout 

because of new program needs, and the desire to provide a more supportive and attractive environment. The complexities in layout may 

introduce irregularities in plan shapes and require complicated fram-
10-6 DESIGN AND PERFORMANCE ISSUES RELATING TO LOCAL SCHOOLS (K-12)

ing. The structural design should focus on reducing plan irregularity, 

and providing appropriate structural connections.

Nonstructural System Issues

School occupants are particularly vulnerable to nonstructural damage. 

Although school children may duck under desks and be safe from falling objects such as light fixtures and ceiling tiles, ceiling 

components that fall in hallways and stairs can make movement difficult, particularly if combined with power failure 

and loss of lighting. As discussed in the Structural System 

Issues Section, most traditional primary and elementary 

school buildings are relatively simple buildings, with few partitions since 

the structure provides the space division. Excessive motion and drift 

(sway) may cause damage to ceilings, partitions, light fixtures, and glazing. In addition, storage units, library shelving, and filing cabinets may 

be hazardous if not braced. Excessive drift and motion may also lead to 

damage to roof-top equipment, and localized damage to water systems 

and fire suppression piping and sprinklers. Heavy mechanical and electrical equipment may also be displaced. 

Falling nonstructural components and systems present a significant 

potential for injuries to building occupants as shown in Figure 10-1. In 

addition to the injury potential and economic loss resulting from repair 

and clean-up costs, excessive service interruption can result from lighting fixture and water, mechanical, and electrical equipment damage. 

As discussed in the Structural System Issues Section, the structure should 

be designed for enhanced drift control to limit nonstructural damage. Lightweight hung ceilings should be avoided 

in light frame or large structures, and the safety of suspended lighting fixtures should always be verified. In general, the responsibilities within the design team for 

nonstructural component support and bracing design should be 

explicit and clear (Use Figure 12-5 responsibility checklist to facilitate 

this process).

School occupants are vulnerable to nonstructural 

damage, particularly falling nonstructural components 

and systems.

Schools should be designed for enhanced drift control to 

limit nonstructural damage
DESIGN AND PERFORMANCE ISSUES RELATING TO HIGHER EDUCATION FACILITIES (UNIVERSITIES) 11-1

DESIGN AND PERFORMANCE ISSUES RELATING

TO HIGHER EDUCATION FACILITIES (UNIVERSITIES) 11

11.1 INTRODUCTION

University campuses generally consist of many different types of buildings, in a broad variety of sizes, housing many different functions. As a 

result, higher education facilities are, in many ways, a microcosm of the 

larger community. In addition to teaching classrooms, university facilities include auditoriums, laboratories, museums, stadiums and arenas, 

libraries and physical plant facilities, to name a few. As universities make 

decisions about the buildings that they construct, seismic considerations can easily be factored into the decision process.

The following are some unique issues associated with higher education 

facilities that should be kept in mind during the design and construction phase of new facilities:

❍ Protection of students, faculty and staff is a very high priority.

❍ Higher education facilities have a high daytime occupancy and 

some evening use, with reduced use in the summer months. Classrooms in particular often have high intensity usage. 
11-2 DESIGN AND PERFORMANCE ISSUES RELATING TO HIGHER EDUCATION FACILITIES (UNIVERSITIES)

❍ Closure of higher education facilities represents a very serious problem, and major college and university damage can have long-term 

economic and social effects. 

❍ Ensuring the survival of records, whether in electronic or written 

form, is essential for continued operation.

❍ Protection of valuable contents such as library inventories, research 

equipment and materials is a high priority.

11.2 OWNERSHIP, FINANCING, AND 

PROCUREMENT

Higher education facilities are typically developed by the institution, 

which may be privately, state or local-community owned. Financing of 

privately owned facilities is typically by private loan, possibly with some 

state or federal assistance; large universities also have large endowments 

and fund-raising activities, a large part of which assist in capital improvement program financing. Public institutions may also be financed by 

state and local bond issues. 

Private institutions have no restrictions on methods of procurement; 

projects may be negotiated, conventionally bid, use construction management or design-build. Public work must be competitively bid. Typically, contracts are placed for all site and building work, both structural 

and nonstructural. Equipment and furnishing and their installation are 

purchased separately from specialized vendors.

Higher education institutions typically emphasize high quality of design 

and construction and long facility life, though all institutions are also 

budget conscious. An attractive campus is seen, particularly by institutions which are in a competitive situation, as an important asset.

11.3 PERFORMANCE OF HIGHER EDUCATION 

FACILITIES (UNIVERSITIES) IN PAST 

EARTHQUAKES

The most significant experiences of seismic performance of higher education facilities in recent earthquakes has been those related to the 

Whittier (Los Angeles region) earthquake of 1987, the Loma Prieta 

(San Francisco Bay region) earthquake of 1989, and the Northridge 

(Los Angeles) earthquake of 1994. During the Whittier earthquake, a 

number of buildings at the California State University at Los Angeles 

suffered some structural damage and extensive nonstructural disruption. One student was killed by a concrete facade panel that fell from a 

parking structure. During the Loma Prieta earthquake, the Stanford 
DESIGN AND PERFORMANCE ISSUES RELATING TO HIGHER EDUCATION FACILITIES (UNIVERSITIES) 11-3

University campus experienced considerable damage, forcing the closure of a dozen buildings. Subsequently, Stanford convened a special 

committee to review steps that should be taken to protect the campus 

against future events. One result was to set up its own seismic safety 

office with structural engineering staff to determine, in concert with 

departmental and university representatives, performance objectives for 

buildings and to review proposed designs. The university played a 

strong role in the early application of performance-based design strategies for its capital programs. 

In the Northridge earthquake, the California State University at 

Northridge was forced to close for a month and re-open in temporary 

buildings. Severe damage was done to the welded steel frame of the 

University Library (Figure 11-1), and buildings on the University of California at Los Angeles (UCLA) campus were slightly damaged. For the 

most part the serious structural damage to all these campuses was experienced by older reinforced buildings or to unreinforced masonry structures. 

The implications of the above-described damage caused a number of 

universities to become concerned about the ability of their facilities to 

support continued teaching and research following a more severe 

event. 

Figure 11-1 Fractured 4-inch-thick steel base plate, university building, 

Northridge, 1994. (photo courtesy of the Earthquake Engineering Research Institute)
11-4 DESIGN AND PERFORMANCE ISSUES RELATING TO HIGHER EDUCATION FACILITIES (UNIVERSITIES)

In 1997 the University of California at Berkeley committed $1 million to 

intensify campus planning and developed a 10-point action plan that 

included a high-level administrative restructuring to focus on campus 

planning and construction, with extensive focus on seismic safety. The 

10-point plan included:

❍ Creation of a new Chancellor’s cabinet-level position of Vice Chancellor to oversee all aspects of the program.

❍ Determination of the need for full or partial closure of any facilities 

deemed an unacceptable risk.

❍ Development of plans for a variety of temporary relocation or 

“surge” space, sites and buildings.

❍ Development and initiation of a multi-source financing plan to 

implement the master plan and implement a seismic retrofit program. 

❍ Conduct of a comprehensive emergency preparedness review, 

including mitigating nonstructural hazards, assuring that emergency and critical facilities are available, and providing emergency 

response training.

This plan is now being implemented; a number of key facilities have 

been retrofitted, and others are in process, with priorities based on a 

seismic evaluation of all the campus buildings. New buildings are subject to a peer-review process of the proposed seismic design. 

11.4 PERFORMANCE EXPECTATIONS AND 

REQUIREMENTS

The following guidelines are suggested as seismic performance objectives for higher education facilities:

❍ Students, faculty, staff and visitors within and immediately outside 

the facilities must be protected at least to a life safety performance 

level during design-level earthquake ground motions.

❍ Emergency systems in the facilities should remain operational after 

the occurrence of design-level earthquake ground motions. 

❍ All occupants should be able to evacuate the school quickly and 

safely after the occurrence of design-level earthquake ground 

motions.

❍ Emergency workers should be able to enter the facility immediately 

after the occurrence of design-level earthquake ground motions, 

encountering minimum interference and danger.
DESIGN AND PERFORMANCE ISSUES RELATING TO HIGHER EDUCATION FACILITIES (UNIVERSITIES) 11-5

11.5 SEISMIC DESIGN ISSUES

The information in this section summarizes the characteristics of higher 

education facilities, notes their relationship to achieving good seismic 

performance, and suggests seismic risk management solutions that 

should be considered. 

Seismic Hazard and Site Issues

Unusual site conditions, such as a near-source location, poor 

soil characteristics, or other seismic hazards, may lead to 

lower performance than expected by the code design. If any 

of these other suspected conditions are geologic hazards, a 

geotechnical engineering consultant should conduct a sitespecific study. If defects are encountered, an alternative site should be 

considered (if possible) or appropriate soil stabilization, foundation 

and structural design approaches should be employed to reduce consequences of ground motion beyond code design values, or costly damage 

caused by geologic or other seismic hazards (see Chapter 3 for additional information). If possible, avoid sites that lack redundant access 

and are vulnerable to bridge or highway closure.

Structural System Issues

Higher education facilities are of great variety and size, encompassing 

all types of structure and services. The basic occupancies are teaching, 

research and administration, but assembly facilities may range from a 

small rehearsal theater to a multi-thousand seat sports stadium. A large 

student center may be a cross between a small shopping mall and a community center with retail stores, food service and places of recreation 

and assembly. As universities become more competitive to attract a 

wider audience, student-life facilities are tending to become larger and 

more complex. In addition, many universities provide extensive dormitory facilities.

Teaching requires spaces for small seminar groups, classrooms that are 

often larger in size than those of a grade school, and large lecture halls 

with sloped seating and advanced audio-visual equipment. Science 

teaching requires laboratories and support spaces with services and 

equipment related to traditional scientific and engineering fields, such 

as chemistry, biology, physics and computer sciences. 

The administration function includes all office functions, including 

extensive communication services and extensive record keeping. Science research requires laboratories and other special facilities (e.g., 

Unusual site conditions, such as a near-source location, 

poor soil characteristics, or other seismic hazards, may 

lead to lower performance than expected by the code 

design.
11-6 DESIGN AND PERFORMANCE ISSUES RELATING TO HIGHER EDUCATION FACILITIES (UNIVERSITIES)

greenhouses) that can accommodate a variety of unique spatial, service 

and utility needs required by researchers; some laboratories such as 

material sciences, physics, and engineering require heavy equipment 

with large power demands. Departmental buildings in the humanities 

may encompass a small administrative function, a variety of teaching 

facilities, many of them small. Departmental buildings in the sciences 

may include laboratories and their support space within the same building, and faculty offices may include direct access to research laboratories. Departmental buildings may also include a departmental library. 

Teaching and research in the biological sciences may include the storage, distribution and use of hazardous substances.

The library is a major campus facility, and a large campus may have several campus-wide libraries. Notwithstanding the rapid advance of computerized information technology and information sources such as the 

internet, the hard-copy resources of the library continue to be of major 

importance, and the library is a distinct building type with some specific 

structural and service demands, such as the ability to safely accommodate heavy dead loads, and to provide a high level of electronic search 

and cataloging functions.

Because of their functional complexity, large higher education facilities 

often have complex and irregular architectural/structural configurations. In addition, the spatial variety within many higher education 

buildings influences some structural choices, and structural design 

tends to be complex in its detailed layout with a variety of spans and 

floor-to-floor heights. Some laboratory equipment requires a vibration 

free environment, which entails special structural and mechanical 

equipment design. The structural design should focus on reducing configuration irregularities to the greatest extent possible and ensuring 

direct load paths. Framing systems need careful design to 

provide the great variety of spatial types necessary without 

introducing localized irregularities. 

Since continued operation is a desirable performance 

objective, structural design beyond life safety is necessary 

and design for both structural integrity and drift control 

need special attention to provide an added level of reliability from the nonstructural components and systems.

Nonstructural System Issues

As noted above, excessive structural motion and drift may cause damage 

to ceilings, partitions, light fixtures, and glazing. In addition, storage 

Since continued operation is a desirable performance 

objective, structural design of higher education facilities 

beyond life safety is necessary and design for both 

structural integrity and drift control need special attention 

to provide an added level of reliability for the 

nonstructural components and systems.
DESIGN AND PERFORMANCE ISSUES RELATING TO HIGHER EDUCATION FACILITIES (UNIVERSITIES) 11-7

units, library shelving, and filing cabinets may be hazardous if not 

braced. Excessive drift and motion may also lead to damage to roof-top 

equipment, and to localized damage to water systems and fire suppression piping and sprinklers. Heavy laboratory equipment and heavy 

mechanical and electrical equipment may also be displaced, and be hazards to occupants in close proximity. 

Continued operation is particularly dependent on nonstructural components and systems, including purchased scientific equipment, much of which is often of great sensitivity 

and cost. Many specialized utilities must be provided, some 

of which involve the storage of hazardous substances. These 

must be protected against spillage during an earthquake. 

Distribution systems for hazardous gases must be well supported and braced. Water must be provided to many spaces, 

and thus the likelihood of water damage is greater. Cosmetic wall and 

ceiling damage that can easily be cleaned up in an office building may 

shut down a research laboratory.

Laboratory and research areas may need special design attention to 

nonstructural components and systems to ensure continued operation 

of critical experiments and equipment.

The responsibilities within the design team for nonstructural component support and bracing design should be explicit and clear. The 

checklist for responsibility of nonstructural design in Chapter 12 (see 

Figure 12-5) provides a guide to establishing responsibilities for the 

design, installation, review and observation of all nonstructural components and systems. 

Continued operation is particularly dependent on 

nonstructural components and systems. Laboratory and 

research areas may need special design attention to 

nonstructural components and systems to ensure 

continued operation of critical experiments and 

equipment.
11-8 DESIGN AND PERFORMANCE ISSUES RELATING TO HIGHER EDUCATION FACILITIES (UNIVERSITIES)
RESPONSIBILITIES FOR SEISMIC CONSIDERATIONS WITHIN THE DESIGN TEAM 12-1

RESPONSIBILITIES FOR SEISMIC CONSIDERATIONS

 WITHIN THE DESIGN TEAM 12

12.1 RESPONSIBILITIES OF THE STRUCTURAL 

ENGINEER, ARCHITECT, AND MEP 

ENGINEER

 Seismic considerations should apply to every building system, subsystem, and component, and the performance of each component or 

system is often interdependent. The traditional organization of the 

design team and the assignment of responsibilities to the architect, 

structural engineer, MEP (mechanical, electrical, and plumbing) consultants, and other specialty consultants (e.g., geotechnical engineer, 

curtain wall consultant, elevator consultant, or security consultant) is 

critically important to address cross-cutting seismic design issues or 

problems.

For example, the seismic design and performance of glazing systems, 

windows, and curtain walls have improved significantly in recent years 

through the adoption of improved code provisions for these building 

systems. These improvements can impact both life safety in an earthquake (broken glass can kill or seriously injure) and immediate occupancy following an earthquake (integrity of the building envelope). 

The trade-offs involve drift limits, curtain wall clearances and design 

details, and glazing design. In this example, the architect, structural 

engineer, and curtain wall consultant must work together closely to 

arrive at the appropriate designs.

12.2 DEVELOPING A UNIFIED APPROACH 

WITHIN THE DESIGN TEAM

The first step in the design process should be the development, with 

active participation of the owner, of a set of clear performance objectives that address how the building is expected to perform before, during, and following an earthquake. These performance objectives 

should be based on owner needs and decisions, and should be 

expanded into detailed performance statements that apply to every subsystem of the building. Throughout the design development, there 

should be explicit reviews of each element of the design against the performance statements in order to assure that the completed building 

meets the expectations articulated in the original performance objectives. In addition, the owner should be encouraged to develop and carry 

out a risk management plan compatible with the performance objectives.
12-2 RESPONSIBILITIES FOR SEISMIC CONSIDERATIONS WITHIN THE DESIGN TEAM

The term “performance objective,” discussed in Chapters 2 and 4, 

should include a statement regarding the seismic performance that is 

expected of the building, subsystem, or component that is being 

addressed. Wherever possible, it should include quantifiable performance criteria that can be measured. For example, an objective may be 

that a subsystem (such as the HVAC system) should be operable following an earthquake of a certain magnitude. The specific criteria related 

to this may specify how long the system is expected to operate, under 

what operating conditions, and with what resulting interior environmental conditions.

12.3 ENGINEERING SERVICES FOR ADDED VALUE 

OF RISK MANAGEMENT

The owner should establish a process in which the risk management 

function and the facilities management function are fully coordinated 

in the development of a capital improvement and new construction 

program. The risk manager should balance seismic risk with all other 

facility-related risks. In order to do so, the risk manager 

should have an understanding of seismic risks. Once the 

risk manager gains such an understanding, the risk manager should be educated to prepare a return-on-investment 

analysis for investments in seismic performance.

The design team has an opportunity to offer the owner a service of educating the risk manager on the details of seismic risk in buildings. This 

service could be independent of any specific capital improvement or 

design project, or it can be offered as a pre-design orientation activity 

that is linked to a design project. 

12.4 COMMUNICATING SEISMIC 

CONSIDERATIONS ISSUES TO THE 

BUILDING OWNER

Issues of building performance should be communicated 

to a building owner in terms that relate how the building is 

expected to perform following an earthquake, and the 

potential impacts that this level of performance may have 

on the postearthquake functionality of the building. In 

order to accomplish this, the design team must learn to 

communicate using terminology that is familiar to the 

owner. This can best be accomplished through interaction with the 

owner’s facilities or risk manager.

The risk manager should balance seismic risk with all other 

facility-related risks. 

Issues of building performance should be communicated to 

a building owner in terms that relate how the building is 

expected to perform following an earthquake, and the 

potential impacts that this level of performance may have 

on the post-earthquake functionality of the building. 
RESPONSIBILITIES FOR SEISMIC CONSIDERATIONS WITHIN THE DESIGN TEAM 12-3

It is typically more difficult to explain earthquake risk issues to a building owner, since such considerations are probabilistic in nature, and less 

specific with respect to magnitude, location, or even how often they will 

occur. The design team must understand the owner’s extent of risk 

aversion or risk tolerance. The more risk neutral the owner is, the simpler the communication is likely to be, in that various outcomes can be multiplied by their respective probabilities 

and then communicated directly to the owner. This process, however, becomes more complicated with a more risk 

averse or tolerant owner. The best way this communication 

can be accomplished is through close interaction and coordination with 

the owner’s risk or facilities manager.

As the member of the design team who initiates the design concept and 

develops it through design development and the preparation of construction documentation, the architect should play a key role in the seismic design process. To ensure that consideration of seismic issues 

occurs with the right degree of priority, and at the right time in the 

design process, the architect should have a clear conceptual understanding of seismic design issues that impact the design.

The structural engineer’s role is to provide the structural design for a 

building. While the structural engineer must play the major role in providing an earthquake-resistant design, the overall design responsibility 

is shared between the architect and engineer, because of architectural 

decisions that may impact the effectiveness of the engineer’s design 

solution and hence the building’s seismic performance. The use of performance-based design can reinforce the importance of the recommendation that the architect and structural engineer work together from 

the inception of a design project, and to discuss seismic issues before 

and during the conceptual design stage. Many of the critical architectural decisions occur at the conceptual design stage, at which point the 

building configuration is set and issues such as the nature of the structure and structural materials and architectural finishes are identified.

The concept of structural engineers participating with architects during 

the early conceptual design phase of a project is not new, yet it is often 

confined to a cursory conversation or does not occur at all, for a variety 

of economic, cultural, and professional reasons. Developmental 

projects often require a partial design in order to procure project 

financing; at this point, the owner typically attempts to minimize upfront costs and the architect will not involve, or only peripherally 

involve, structural consultants. Some architects see the structural engiThe design team must understand the owner’s extent of 

risk aversion or risk tolerance. 
12-4 RESPONSIBILITIES FOR SEISMIC CONSIDERATIONS WITHIN THE DESIGN TEAM

neer as providing a purely service role in enabling the architect to 

achieve the forms and spaces that are desired. In a successful project, 

the architect and structural engineer typically collaborate on layout and 

design issues from the inception of the project, in order to ensure that 

the architectural and structural objectives are achieved.

As the servicing needs of contemporary buildings continue 

to increase, the impact of the MEP (mechanical, electrical, 

and plumbing systems) consultant’s work on seismic design 

becomes increasingly important. An example of this is the 

need for penetrations or blockouts in the structure to 

accommodate ductwork, piping, and equipment, which requires early 

design consideration. These penetrations are fundamental to the integration of the structural and mechanical system, and their 

size and location should be carefully worked out between 

the architect, structural, and mechanical engineers. There 

are many instance of damage to buildings in earthquakes 

caused by structural member penetrations that have not 

been adequately coordinated with the structural design.

Protecting against nonstructural damage requires clear allocation of 

roles and responsibilities. An important question is: Is the structural 

design of mechanical equipment supports the responsibility of the equipment vendor, the mechanical engineer, or 

the structural engineer? Similarly, is the design of the connections for precast concrete cladding the responsibility of 

the precast element vendor or the building structural engineer? And, is the layout and design of bracing for ductwork the responsibility of the mechanical contractor or the building structural 

engineer? If these responsibilities are not called out at the outset of the 

job, the result will be disputes, extra costs, and potentially serious omissions. 

Design-Build and Fast-Track Projects

Large projects are often “fast-tracked” to some degree, with the construction contract separated into a number of bid packages that may be 

sole-source negotiated or competitively bid. The objective here is to 

speed the project’s overall completion, but the process can substantially 

complicate coordination of tasks. Among the reasons for this are the 

following.

❍ The complete design team may not be in existence before the preparation of construction documents has begun. This arrangement 

In a successful project, the architect and structural 

engineer typically collaborate on layout and design issues 

from the inception of the project.

There are many instance of damage to buildings in 

earthquakes caused by structural member penetrations 

that have not been adequately coordinated with the 

structural design.

Protecting against nonstructural damage requires clear 

allocation of roles and responsibilities.
RESPONSIBILITIES FOR SEISMIC CONSIDERATIONS WITHIN THE DESIGN TEAM 12-5

can create problems when decisions early in the project determine 

design approaches and delegate responsibility to entities who are 

not yet under contract, or who have had no input into such early 

decisions.

❍ Communication among designers during fast-track projects is usually more difficult because the development of separate bidding 

packages means that the design process is fragmented, rather than 

one which undergoes continuous evolution. At any stage during 

design development and contract document preparation stages of a 

project, a complete set of drawings of the project may not exist.

❍ Because of demands in the project schedule, the design and fabrication, or preparation of shop drawings, many items are not always 

thoroughly reviewed by the architect or engineer, and in some cases 

may not even be submitted to the local building department.

Design-build and fast-track construction can be very efficient for simple 

projects and for design teams that have a track record in 

working together, but for more complex projects and for 

design teams that have not previously worked together, 

both the design and construction phases of a project will 

need special attention. The assignment of roles and 

responsibilities is critical if the performance objectives are 

to be adequately defined and for integrated seismic design 

and construction to be achieved.

Checklists to Facilitate the Design and Construction Process

A useful aid for the development of performance objectives and the 

coordination of the design and construction process within the design 

team is the use of checklists. These may be maintained by hand for 

smaller jobs, or computerized for larger or more complicated ones. 

Checklists can highlight key seismic design issues that require consideration and resolution, and can serve to ensure that all issues are adequately dealt with. The checklists discussed below are suggested as 

models that may be modified to suit the nature of the design team and 

the construction delivery process.

Figure 12-1 provides a seismic performance checklist, intended to focus 

the building owner and the design team on issues related to seismic performance expectations. The checklist presents a set of questions that 

are used to help the client focus on available seismic performance alternatives, leading to a recorded statement of the client’s expectations of 

seismic performance goals that, hopefully, are in line with available 

Design-build and fast-track construction can be very 

efficient for simple projects and for design teams that have 

a track record in working together, but for more complex 

projects and for design teams that have not previously 

worked together, both the design and construction phases 

of a project will need special attention.
12-6 RESPONSIBILITIES FOR SEISMIC CONSIDERATIONS WITHIN THE DESIGN TEAM

Figure 12-1 Checklist for seismic expectations. (adapted from Elssesser, 1992))
RESPONSIBILITIES FOR SEISMIC CONSIDERATIONS WITHIN THE DESIGN TEAM 12-7

resources. Agreement on such goals and expectations forms the beginning of a performance-based design procedure and can limit future 

“surprises” due to unanticipated earthquake damage. The checklist 

statements can become a part of the project’s building program, in a 

manner similar to statements about acoustical or thermal performance, 

and can serve as the basis for the use of more formal performancebased design procedures during the design.

Figure 12-2 provides a checklist intended to facilitate a discussion 

between the architect and the structural engineer on the importance of 

various building siting, layout, and design issues. The checklist identifies a number of issues that should be discussed and resolved by the 

architect and structural engineer at the early stages of a new project. 

The checklist should be used when a conceptual design has been prepared and transmitted to the structural engineer. The checklist is 

intended primarily to provoke a discussion, and is not intended to be 

filled in and used as a document of record. Most of the items in the 

checklist will need varying levels of discussion; the checklist is only 

intended to identify the existence of a potential problem and indicate 

the importance and priority, or significance, of the problem.

Figure 12-2 also ensures that all significant issues are covered, and that 

the architect and structural engineer have reached mutual understanding on the resolution of problems. This is the point at which the structural engineer should explain any issues that are not clear. Similarly, if 

planning or other constraints appear to have resulted in a questionable 

seismic configuration or a building with other undesirable seismic characteristics, the use of this checklist will ensure the identification of these 

characteristics fairly early in the design process, and should open the 

way to their resolution.

Figure 12-3 provides a list of structural and nonstructural components 

which are typically included in a building project. It is intended to 

define the responsibilities within the design team for various aspects of 

the design, and establishes the scope of work among the major consultants and suppliers. The checklist provides the basis for consultant 

agreements between the architect, construction manager, and specialist 

consultants. In most projects, costs and a competitive market tend to 

limit the time and money available for design. Working within a limited 

budget and timeframe, current practice is for architects and structural 

engineers to leave some design tasks to engineers employed by subcontractors and vendors (e.g., the design of precast concrete panels and 

their connections, prefabricated stairs, and truss assemblies). This 
12-8 RESPONSIBILITIES FOR SEISMIC CONSIDERATIONS WITHIN THE DESIGN TEAM

Figure 12-2 Checklist for Architect/Engineer Interaction. (from Elssesser, 1992)
RESPONSIBILITIES FOR SEISMIC CONSIDERATIONS WITHIN THE DESIGN TEAM 12-9

Figure 12-3 Checklist for defining project responsibilities. Key professional personnel responsible for various aspects of 

design should be indicated in the appropriate cell of the check list (adapted from Elsesser, 1992).
12-10 RESPONSIBILITIES FOR SEISMIC CONSIDERATIONS WITHIN THE DESIGN TEAM

checklist can be used to identify where and when these procedures will 

be used.

Figure 12-4 provides an example that shows how the checklist in 

Figure 12-3 may be completed for a representative project. This example shows a traditional design and construction process in which the 

architect plays the key role in design management and project coordination. The assigned responsibilities would vary depending on the 

nature of the project, the composition of the project team, and the proposed design and construction procedures.

Figure 12-5 provides a list of typical building non-structural components 

and, similar to Figure 12-2, is intended to delineate the roles and 

responsibilities of design team members for the design and installation 

of nonstructural components and systems. In current practice, this area 

is often unclear and important non-structural protective measures may 

become the subject of dispute; in some extreme cases, they may be 

omitted altogether. Both this checklist and that shown in Figure 12-2 

are expected to play an important role in establishing the total scope of 

work for the various project consultants, and in ensuring that important 

tasks do not fall between the cracks of the various involved design and 

construction parties.

12.5 DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION QUALITY 

ASSURANCE

Building codes require that “special inspections” be carried out for specific critical elements of a building during construction. These inspections are intended to assure that a high degree of quality has been 

achieved in constructing the approved design, and in the manner in 

which it is intended. As related to seismic design, special inspections 

typically apply to important construction and fabrication considerations, such as ensuring the use of pre-certified weld procedures and 

adequate weld quality.

Performance-based seismic design also requires specific performance 

from nonstructural systems and components in the building. In order 

to obtain the intended seismic performance in these areas, additional 

quality assurance activities are needed, above and beyond those typically 

required by code or employed on normal non-seismic construction 

projects. The following is a partial list of some nonstructural system 

components in need of special consideration or inspection.
RESPONSIBILITIES FOR SEISMIC CONSIDERATIONS WITHIN THE DESIGN TEAM 12-11

Figure 12-4 Example of completed checklist shown in Figure 12-3. (adapted from Elssesser, 1992)
12-12 RESPONSIBILITIES FOR SEISMIC CONSIDERATIONS WITHIN THE DESIGN TEAM

Figure 12-5 Checklist for responsibility of nonstructural component design. (from ATC/SEAOC Joint Venture, 

1999)
RESPONSIBILITIES FOR SEISMIC CONSIDERATIONS WITHIN THE DESIGN TEAM 12-13

❍ Inspection of the anchorage and bracing of architectural and 

mechanical elements.

❍ Labeling of fenestration products to ensure that they have been provided as specified, and inspection to ensure proper installation.

❍ Inspection of ceiling and partition attachments.

❍ Inspection of special equipment.

The report, ATC-48, Built to Resist Earthquakes: The Path to 

Quality Seismic Design and Construction (ATC/SEAOC, 1999), 

provides comprehensive guidance on issues pertaining to 

the quality design and construction of wood-frame, concrete, and masonry buildings, and anchorage and bracing 

of non-structural components.

Design and Construction Quality Assurance

 ATC-48, Built to Resist Earthquakes: The Path to Quality 

Seismic Design and Construction (ATC/SEAOC, 1999).
12-14 RESPONSIBILITIES FOR SEISMIC CONSIDERATIONS WITHIN THE DESIGN TEAM
13-1

REFERENCES

ASCE, 2002, Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and Other Structures, 

American Society of Civil Engineers, Standard ASCE-7, Reston, Virginia.

ASCE, 2000, Prestandard and Commentary for the Seismic Rehabilitation of 

Buildings, prepared by the American Society of Civil Engineers, published by the Federal Emergency Management Agency, FEMA 356 

Report, Washington, DC.

ATC, 1978, Tentative Provisions for the Development of Seismic Regulations for 

Buildings, Applied Technology Council, ATC-03 Report, Redwood 

City, California.

ATC, 1989a, Procedures for Postearthquake Safety Evaluation of Buildings, 

Applied Technology Council, ATC-20 Report, Redwood City, California.

ATC, 1989b, Field Manual: Postearthquake Safety Evaluation of Buildings, 

Applied Technology Council, ATC-20-1 Report, Redwood City, California.

ATC, 1993, ATC-20 Postearthquake Safety Evaluation of Buildings Training 

Slide Set, Applied Technology Council, ATC-20-T Report, Redwood 

City, California.

ATC, 1995, Addendum to the ATC-20 Procedures for Postearthquake Safety 

Evaluation of Buildings, Applied Technology Council, ATC-20-2 

Report, Redwood City, California.

ATC, 1996a, Case Studies in Rapid Postearthquake Safety Evaluation of Buildings, Applied Technology Council, ATC-20-3 Report, Redwood City, 

California.

ATC, 1996b, Seismic Evaluation and Retrofit of Concrete Buildings, Volumes 

1 and 2, Applied Technology Council, ATC-40 Report, Redwood City, 

California.

ATC, 1997, Example Applications of the NEHRP Guidelines for the Seismic 

Rehabilitation of Buildings, prepared by the Applied Technology 

Council for the Building Seismic Safety Council; published by the 

Federal Emergency Management Agency, FEMA 276 Report, Washington, D.C.
13-2

ATC, 2002, Recommended U.S.-Italy Collaborative Procedures for Earthquake 

Emergency Response Planning for Hospitals in Italy, Applied Technology 

Council, ATC-51-1 Report, Redwood City, California.

ATC, 2004a (in preparation), Improvement of Inelastic Seismic Analysis Procedures, prepared by the Applied Technology Council for the Federal Emergency Management Agency, FEMA 440, Washington, D.C.

ATC, 2004b (in preparation), Program Plan for Development of PerformanceBased Seismic Design Guidelines, prepared by the Applied Technology 

Council for the Federal Emergency Management Agency, FEMA 

445, Washington, D.C.

ATC, 2004c (in preparation), Characterization of Seismic Performance for 

Buildings, prepared by the Applied Technology Council for the Federal Emergency Management Agency, FEMA 446, Washington, D.C.

ATC/BSSC, 1997a, NEHRP Guidelines for the Seismic Rehabilitation of Buildings, prepared by the Applied Technology Council (ATC-33 project) 

for the Building Seismic Safety Council, published by the Federal 

Emergency Management Agency, FEMA 273 Report, Washington, 

DC.

ATC/BSSC, 1997b, NEHRP Commentary on the Guidelines for the Seismic 

Rehabilitation of Buildings, prepared by the Applied Technology 

Council (ATC-33 project) for the Building Seismic Safety Council, 

published by the Federal Emergency Management Agency, FEMA 

274 Report, Washington, DC.

BSSC, 1988a, Seismic Considerations – Apartment Buildings, prepared by 

the Building Seismic Safety Council, published by the Federal Emergency Management Agency, FEMA 152 Report, Washington, DC.

BSSC, 1988b, Seismic Considerations – Office Buildings, prepared by the 

Building Seismic Safety Council, published by the Federal Emergency Management Agency, FEMA 153 Report, Washington, DC.

BSSC, 1988c, NEHRP Recommended Provisions for Seismic Regulations for 

New Building and Other Structures, Part 1 – Provisions, prepared by the 

Building Seismic Safety Council, published by the Federal Emergency Management Agency, FEMA 152 Report, Washington, DC.

BSSC, 1990a, Seismic Considerations – Elementary and Secondary Schools, 

prepared by the Building Seismic Safety Council, published by the 

Federal Emergency Management Agency, FEMA 149 Report, Washington, DC.
13-3

BSSC, 1990b, Seismic Considerations – Health Care Facilities, prepared by 

the Building Seismic Safety Council, published by the Federal Emergency Management Agency, FEMA 150 Report, Washington, DC.

BSSC, 1990c, Seismic Considerations – Hotels and Motels, prepared by the 

Building Seismic Safety Council, published by the Federal Emergency Management Agency, FEMA 151 Report, Washington, DC.

BSSC, 1995, NEHRP Recommended Provisions for Seismic Regulations for New 

Buildings, 1994 edition, prepared by the Building Seismic Safety 

Council, published by the Federal Emergency Management Agency, 

FEMA 222A Report, Washington, DC.

BSSC, 1998, NEHRP Recommended Provisions for Seismic Regulations for New 

Buildings and Other Structures, 1997 edition, prepared by the Building 

Seismic Safety Council, published by the Federal Emergency Management Agency, FEMA 303 Report, Washington, DC.

BSSC, 2001, NEHRP Recommended Provisions for Seismic Regulations for New 

Buildings and Other Structures, Part I: Provisions, and Part II, Commentary, 2000 Edition, prepared by the Building Seismic Safety Council, 

published by the Federal Emergency Management Agency, Publications, FEMA 368 Report and FEMA 369 Report, Washington, DC.

Benuska, L. (Editor), 1990, Loma Prieta Earthquake of October 17, 1989: 

Reconnaissance Report, Supplement to Earthquake Spectra, Volume 6, 

Earthquake Engineering Research Institute, Oakland, California, 

450 pages.

Comartin, C.D. (Editor), 1995, The Guam Earthquake of August 8, 1993: 

Reconnaissance Report, Supplement to Earthquake Spectra, Volume 11, 

Earthquake Engineering Research Institute, Oakland, California, 

175 pages.

Comartin, C.D., Greene, M., and Tubbesing, S.K., (Editors), 1995, The 

Hyogo-ken Nanbu Earthquake, January 17,1995: Preliminary Reconnaissance Report, Earthquake Engineering Research Institute, Oakland, 

California, 116 pages.

Chung, R. (Editor), 1995, Hokkaido-nansei-oki, Japan, Earthquake of July 

12, 1993: Reconnaissance Report, Supplement to Earthquake Spectra, 

Volume 11, Earthquake Engineering Research Institute, Oakland, 

California, 166 pages.

Cole, E.E. and Shea, G.H., (Editors), 1991, Costa Rica Earthquake of April 

22, 1991: Reconnaissance Report, Special Supplement B to Earthquake 
13-4

Spectra, Volume 7, Earthquake Engineering Research Institute, Oakland, California, 170 pages.

EERI, 1985, Impressions of the Guerrero-Michoacan, Mexico, Earthquake of 19 

September 1985: A Preliminary Reconnaissance Report, Earthquake Engineering Research Institute, published in cooperation with the 

National Research Council of the National Academy of Sciences, 

Oakland, California, 36 pages.

EERI, 2000, Action Plan for Performance-Based Seismic Design, prepared by 

the Earthquake Engineering Research Institute, published by the 

Federal Emergency Management Agency, FEMA 349 Report, Washington, DC.

Elsesser, E., 1992, “Structures for Seismic Resistance,” Buildings at Risk : 

Seismic Design Basics for Practicing Architects, AIA/ACSA Council on 

Architectural Research, Washington, DC.

Frankel, A.D., and Leyendecker, E.V., 2000, “Uniform hazard response 

spectra and seismic hazard curves for the United States: CD-ROM,” 

U.S. Geological Survey, National Seismic Hazard Mapping Project.

Frankel, A., Mueller, C., Barnhard, T., Perkins, D., Leyendecker, E., 

Dickman, N., Hanson, S., and Hopper M., 1996, National Seismic 

Hazard Maps: Documentation June 1996, U.S. Geological Survey, 

Open-File Report 96-532, 110 p.

Frankel, A.D., Mueller, C.S., Barnhard, T.P., Leyendecker, E.V., Wesson, 

R.L., Harmsen, S.C., Klein, F.W., Perkins, D.M., Dickman, N.C., 

Hanson, S.L., and Hopper, M.G., 2000, “USGS national seismic hazard maps,” Earthquake Spectra, V. 16, No. 1, Earthquake Engineering 

Research Institute, Oakland, California, pages 1-19.

Hall, J. (Editor), 1995, Northridge Earthquake of January 17, 1994: Reconnaissance Report, Vol. I, Supplement to Earthquake Spectra, Volume 11, 

Earthquake Engineering Research Institute, Oakland, California, 

523 pages.

Hall, J. (Editor), 1996, Northridge Earthquake of January 17, 1994: Reconnaissance Report, Vol. II, Earthquake Engineering Research Institute, 

Oakland, California, 280 pages. 

ICBO, 1997, Uniform Building Code, International Conference of Building Officials, Whittier, California.

ICC, 2000, International Building Code, International Code Council (formerly: Building Officials and Code Administrators International, 
13-5

Inc., International Conference of Building Officials, and Southern 

Building Code Congress International, Inc.), Birmingham, Alabama.

Malley, J.O., Shea, G.H., and Gulkan, P., (Editors), 1993, Erzincan, Turkey, Earthquake of March 13, 1992: Reconnaissance Report, Supplement 

to Earthquake Spectra, Volume 9, Earthquake Engineering Research 

Institute, Oakland, California, 210 pages.

NFPA, 2003, 5000 Building Construction and Safety Code, National Fire 

Protection Association, Quincy, Massachusetts.

SAC, 2000a, Recommended Seismic Design Criteria for New Steel Moment-Frame 

Buildings, prepared by the SAC Joint Venture, a partnership of the 

Structural Engineers Association of California, Applied Technology 

Council, and California Universities for Research in Earthquake 

Engineering, published by the Federal Emergency Management 

Agency, FEMA 350 Report, Washington, DC

SAC, 2000b, Recommended Specifications and Quality Assurance Guidelines 

for Steel Moment-Frame Construction for Seismic Applications, prepared by 

the SAC Joint Venture, a partnership of the Structural Engineers 

Association of California, Applied Technology Council, and California Universities for Research in Earthquake Engineering, published 

by the Federal Emergency Management Agency, FEMA 353 Report, 

Washington, DC

SBCCI, 1997, Standard Building Code, Southern Building Code Congress, 

International, Birmingham, Alabama.

Schiff, A.J. (Editor), 1991, Philippines Earthquake of July 16, 1990: Reconnaissance Report, Special Supplement A to Earthquake Spectra, Volume 

7, Earthquake Engineering Research Institute, Oakland, California, 

150 pages.

SEAOC, 1995, Vision 2000: Performance-Based Seismic Engineering of Buildings, Structural Engineers Association of California, Sacramento, 

California.

SEAOC, 1999, Recommended Lateral Force Requirements and Commentary, 

prepared by the Structural Engineers Association of California, published by the International Conference of Building Officials, Whittier, California.

USACE, 1998, Seismic Design for Buildings, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 

Publication TI809-04.
13-6

Working Group on California Earthquake Probabilities, 2003, Earthquake probabilities in the San Francisco Bay region: 2002-2031, U. S. Geological Survey, Open-file Report 03-214, Menlo Park, California

Wyllie, L.A. and Filson, J.R., (Editors), 1989, Armenia Earthquake of 

December 7, 1988: Reconnaissance Report, Supplement to Earthquake 

Spectra, Volume 5, Earthquake Engineering Research Institute, Oakland, California, 175 pages.

Ziony, J. I. (Editor), 1985, Evaluating Earthquake Hazards in the Los Angeles 

Region—An Earth Science Perspective, U. S. Geological Survey, Professional Paper 1360, Reston, Virginia.
14-1

PROJECT PARTICIPANTS

Principal Investigator

Christopher Rojahn

Applied Technology Council

201 Redwood Shores Parkway, Suite 240

Redwood City, California 94065

FEMA Project Officer

Milagros Kennett

Federal Emergency Management Agency

500 "C" Street, SW, Room 416

Washington, DC 20472

Senior Review Panel

John Ashelin

Project Engineer - Corporate Engineering

Anheuser-Busch Companies, Inc.

One Busch Place

St. Louis, Missouri 63118

Deborah B. Beck

Beck Creative Strategies LLC

531 Main Street - Suite 313

New York, New York 10044

Clifford J. Carey AIA

University of Illinois

Project Planning & Facility Management

807 S. Wright Street, Suite 320

Champaign, Illinois 61820

Edwin T. Dean1

Nishkian Dean

319 SW Washington Street, Suite 720

Portland, Oregon 97204

1. ATC Board Contact
14-2

Randal C. Haslam AIA CSI

Director of School Construction

Jordan School District

9150 South 500 West

Sandy, Utah 84070

Roger Richter

California Healthcare Association

1215 K Street, Suite 800

Sacramento, California 95814

Project Working Group

Chris Arnold

Building Systems Development

P.O. Box 51950

Palo Alto, California 94303

Craig D. Comartin

Comartin-Reis Engineering

7683 Andrea Avenue

Stockton, California 95207-1705

David B. Hattis

Building Technology Inc.

1109 Spring Street

Silver Spring, Maryland 20910

Patrick J. Lama

Mason Industries

350 Rebro Drive

Hauppauge, New York 11788

Maurice S. Power

Geomatrix Consultants, Inc.

2101 Webster Street, 12th Floor

Oakland, California 94612

Evan Reis

Comartin-Reis Engineering

345 California Ave, Suite 5

Palo Alto, California 94306