architectural practice & earthquake hazards

8/8/2019 Architectural Practice & Earthquake Hazards

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/architectural-practice-earthquake-hazards 1/28

ARCHITECTURAL PRACTICE AND EARTHQUAKE HAZARDS

A Report

of the

Committee on the Architect’s Role in Earthquake Hazard Mitigation

State of CaliforniaState Seismic Safety Commission

1755 Creekside Oaks Drive, Suite 100Sacramento, CA 95833

SSC 91-10



ii

Credits

Seismic Safety Commission

Barbara Cram Riordan Chairman Local Government

Hal Bernson Local Government

Bruce A. BoltSeismology

AssemblymanDominic L. Cortese(Tom White)State Assembly

Paul F. Fratessa Structural Engineer

Wilfred D. Iwan Mechanical Engineering

Senator Alfred E. Alquist(Chris Lindstrom)State Senate

Wilferd W. Peak*Geology

Stanley Scott Local Government

Lloyd S. Cluff Utilities

LeRoy Crandall

Soils Engineering

William J. Kockelman* Architecture & Planning

Robert E. McCarthy Local Government

James E. Slosson**Geology

Patricia Snyder

Social Services Morgan Davis** Insurance

Daniel J. Eberle* Emergency Services

Gary L. McGavin** Architecture and Planning

James F. McMullenFire Services

William T. Waste* Insurance

Frances E. Winslow** Emergency Services

Commission Staff

L. Thomas Tobin Executive Director

Brenda Boswell

Karen CoganTim Cronin

Rita DardenTeri DeVriendMarc FirestoneLaura Fowler

Kathy GoodellJames Goodfellow

Ed HensleyRichard McCarthySusan MerkelBrian Stoner

Fred TurnerPatrick Tyner

Committee Members

Stanley Scott Committee Chairman

Eric Elsesser, SE, CEForell/Elsesser Engineers, Inc.

Henry J. Lagorio, AIACenter for Environmental Design

Research, University of California,

Berkeley

Christopher Arnold, FAIA

Building Systems Development, Inc.

Richard Eisner, AIA, AICP

Bay Area Regional EarthquakePreparedness Project

Paul R. Neel, FAIA

Board of Architectural Examiners

Gregg Brandow, SE, CE Brandow & Johnston Associates

Robert I. Hench, AIAThe Blurock Partnership

Paul W. Welch, Jr., Hon. CCAIACalifornia Council of the American

Institute of Architects *Appointment ended July 15, 1991** Appointment began November 20, 1991



iii

Table of Contents

Foreword...................................................................................................................................................1Introduction...............................................................................................................................................2

The Architect’s Role in Design..........................................................................................................2The Architect’s Role in Community Leadership ...............................................................................3

Needed: Improved Seismic Awareness and Better Teamwork................................................................4Design Practice Aids.................................................................................................................................5Strengthening Seismic Design Practice ....................................................................................................6Professional Interaction in Seismic Design ..............................................................................................7Seismic Goals and Expectations...............................................................................................................10Seismic Performance Guidelines and Evaluation Reports .......................................................................12Scope-of-Work Guidelines and Agreements ............................................................................................13Peer Review of Architectural Firms .........................................................................................................15Testing and Licensing Architects .............................................................................................................16The Potentials of Architectural Education ...............................................................................................17

Strengthening Educational Programs.................................................................................................17Improving Faculty Awareness............................................................................................................17Promoting Participation in Continuing Education .............................................................................17

Post-Earthquake Roles of Architects ........................................................................................................19Rapid Screening and Evaluation of Damaged Buildings ...................................................................19Assistance with Recovery and Reconstruction ..................................................................................19Earthquake Site Visits—Learning from Earthquakes ........................................................................20

Summary of Recommendations................................................................................................................21Introduction........................................................................................................................................21Strengthening Architects’ Leadership Roles......................................................................................21Preparing and Using the References and Resources ..........................................................................21Professional Interaction in Seismic Design........................................................................................21Seismic Goals and Expectations ........................................................................................................21Seismic Performance Guidelines and Evaluation Reports.................................................................21Scope-of-Work Guidelines and Agreements......................................................................................22Peer Review of Architectural Firms...................................................................................................22Testing and Licensing Architects.......................................................................................................22Realizing the Potentials of Architectural Education..........................................................................22

Strengthening Educational Programs...........................................................................................22Improving Faculty Awareness .....................................................................................................22Promoting Participation in Continuing Education.......................................................................22

Post-Earthquake Roles of Architects..................................................................................................23Rapid Screening and Evaluation of Damaged Buildings.............................................................23Assistance With Recovery and Reconstruction...........................................................................23Earthquake Site Visits—Learning from Earthquakes..................................................................23

AppendicesAppendix A—Acronyms ..........................................................................................................................24Appendix B—Notes on Terminology.......................................................................................................25

Tables1. Options for Improving Architectural Seismic Design Practice..........................................62. Seismic Design Checklist to Facilitate Architect/Engineer Interaction.......................8-93. Seismic Goals and Expectations ................................................................................................114. Design Scope-of-Work Guidelines............................................................................................14



1

Foreword

This report was prepared to explore roles forarchitects in seismic design and post-earthquakeresponse, and to consider the kinds of relationships between architects, structuralengineers, clients and others that can promotegood seismic design and satisfactory buildingperformance. The committee also was asked toidentify any additional training or otherpreparation from which architects might benefit,in relation to seismic safety.

Architects practicing and teaching inCalifornia are a prime audience for the report,although several other audiences should alsofind it pertinent. Non-architect members of

design teams—structural engineers, civilengineers who design structures, andmechanical and electrical engineers—shouldnumber among the report’s interested readers.In addition, owners, builders, those who put upthe money to finance buildings, and the insurersof structures and businesses against losses, alsowill find the contents highly relevant. Otherreaders with broader concerns for seismic safetyand earthquake preparedness will be interestedin ways to encourage improvements in theseismic design of structures built in California.

More specifically, the committee was askedto:

• Identify ways architects might improve theseismic resistance of buildings they design.

• Identify the kinds of relationships betweenarchitects and structural engineers thatmight promote improvements in seismicdesign.

• Consider how relationships among designprofessionals, clients, builders, developersand others can facilitate improvements instructural safety.

• Consider roles of architects in the post-earthquake evaluation of structures.

• Identify educational needs with respect toseismic concerns and building performancein earthquakes.

The findings and recommendations arebased on committee discussions andunpublished position papers written bycommittee members. The committeeacknowledges its indebtedness to Mr. EricElsesser for his position paper’s contributions,which were adapted for inclusion in this report.



2

Introduction

Architects practicing in California havethreefold opportunities to help with seismicdesign and seismic safety policy. First, as keymembers of design teams, they are in a uniqueposition to identify opportunities for designingand constructing buildings and other facilities toresist seismic forces. Second, architects canassume professional and leadership roles inpromoting community awareness and workingfor earthquake-hazard mitigation. Third, theycan have a distinct role in post-earthquakerecovery.

The Architect’s Role in Design

As prime design professionals, architects have aunique role in design and construction. Thearchitect is often the only professional with anoverall view of all aspects of the design andconstruction process. The architect serves theclient, brings in the structural engineer and otherengineering specialties, works closely with thecontractor, and ideally, orchestrates the projectto facilitate performance and achieve goodresults. Architects are therefore in a crucialposition to influence the seismic safety of structures.

For several reasons this potential is notalways fully realized. The opportunity toinfluence a project’s quality and cost is greatestin the earliest phases of the design period, afterwhich it drops precipitously. Initial decisionson a project’s structural concepts can do muchto determine its ultimate seismic resistance, forbetter or worse. Thus decisions early in thedesign period may commit a project to abuilding configuration or design concept thatmakes effective lateral-force resistance difficultto achieve. Accordingly, close collaboration

from the outset between the architect andstructural engineer—as well as the mechanicaland electrical engineers—is highly desirable.

A second consideration arises fromeconomic pressures in the design andconstruction process. In California this is aparticular cause for concern, because of possibleeffects on the seismic resistance of structures. Itneeds to be more widely understood by ownersthat simply complying with minimum

requirements of the Uniform Building Code maynot result in an appropriate seismic design forall situations. Careful attention by qualified andexperienced practitioners having a broadknowledge of seismic design is also essential.The earthquake resistance of a structuredesigned by well-qualified practitioners willalmost always be superior to that of a buildingby designers with less experience in seismicdesign.

Economic constraints on design andconstruction practices may result in structuresthat comply with codes but are neverthelesssusceptible to significant damage. They may

cause many severe casualties when anearthquake occurs. Even if no lives are lost,poorly performing buildings and their contentscan suffer major damage, which can bedevastating to occupants, e.g., tenants orbusinesses forced to vacate or suspendoperations.

In the prevailing circumstances, the feespublic and private owners appear willing to payfor architectural engineering work are ofteninsufficient to provide the levels of professionalservice needed for adequate attention to seismic

resistance. Consequently, at the outset thebuyer or owner should understand therelationship between design and constructioncosts, and the levels of quality control andbuilding reliability being purchased with thefees budgeted.

While improving building performance islikely to mean some increase in construction anddesign costs, these added expenses may not besignificantly more than those of a structure builtto minimal seismic standards. Furthermore,typical kinds of earthquake damage are

controllable for very little added expense. Inshort, owners’ decisions to go for the lowest feein design contract negotiations may save little atthe beginning, while proving very costly later inthe event of a damaging earthquake.

The recommendations in this report mayclarify important design practice issues andprovide guidance in dealing with major issues.Implementation of the recommendations mayalso strengthen the role of California architects



3

in the design and construction process.Moreover the recommendations forimprovements in practice can reduce exposureto damage claims and liability suits due tobuilding failures. Accordingly, this reportmerits careful attention by architects practicingin California, and by all organizations concerned

with earthquake safety.

The Architect’s Role in Community Leadership

Architects have many opportunities to advocatethe creation of a more seismically safeenvironment, help identify existing earthquakehazards, and avoid the creation of new ones.They can pursue these objectives in cooperationwith other design and constructionprofessionals, community organizations,schools, and public and business leaders. Theirefforts might include advocacy of earthquake

safety in public forums, in addition toencouraging design and construction projectsthat embody improved standards of lateral-forceresistance.

Architects are frequently involved in theseismic strengthening of existing buildings—many of which are older structures, some witharchitectural merit, historic character, or long-term associations with community life. Wherepossible, these values should be

preserved, and architects can help by mediatingbetween the needs of structural retrofittechnology and the goals of historic andarchitectural preservation. Thus they are in aposition to promote improved seismic safety,while also seeking to maintain intrinsic valuesthat might be lost.

Approaches to seismic hazard abatementdepend on a community’s physical environment,and its social, economic and politicalcircumstances. Influential factors include theprevalence of hazardous buildings, theavailability of alternative affordable housing,the demography and composition of thecommunity, economic pressures forredevelopment, and the ability to obtaineconomic and fiscal resources to help pay formitigation of earthquake hazards.

Architects can help formulate appropriatemitigation strategies for their communities.First, they can work as advocates for sensibleand prudent seismic safety programs. Second,they can help address the needs of displacedresidents for affordable housing or alternativecommercial space. Third, they can promotemitigation plans that respect and preserve thehistoric fabric of the community througharchitecturally sensitive retrofit designs. Fourth,they can join in multidisciplinary researchefforts to advance new technologies anddirections in earthquake hazard mitigationactivities.

To capitalize on these many opportunitiesfor playing more effective roles, and tostrengthen the profession’s community andeducational leadership, the California Council,American Institute of Architects (CCAIA)should promote a strengthening of architects’earthquake awareness and knowledge of seismicdesign considerations.



4

Needed: Improved Seismic Awareness and Better Teamwork

The seismic resistance of buildings is a majorconcern in a state prone to earthquakes. Theconceptual stages of a building’s design involvedecisions by the design team and owner that cando much to determine a structure’s seismicperformance. Accordingly, owners, architectsand engineers should collaborate closely,starting at the very beginning of the designprocess. A good grasp of seismic designconsiderations, plus good architect and engineerteamwork, can lead to the construction

of buildings with enhanced resistance to thelateral forces of earthquakes.

As things stand, some architects may needto improve their understanding of designrequirements for improved seismic resistance.Furthermore, working relationships amongowners, architects and engineers may not besufficiently close. We therefore recommendsteps to improve seismic design practice and topromote strengthened architect-engineercollaboration.



5

Design Practice Aids

Each construction job involves unique

circumstances, but use of common methods,procedures, and documentation by design-teammembers can facilitate better awareness of mutual responsibilities and promote improvedseismic design. Several of these aids arediscussed below, including checklists, guidesand other sample documents. Their appropriateuse by design teams could help clarify task assignments, reduce uncertainties, promoteteamwork, and improve seismic design.

Use of such aids could also help designteams explain to owners and others the level of

building performance in earthquakes that aproposed project budget is likely to buy, andwhat it is not likely to assure. Used in contractnegotiations, such aids may facilitate a bettermatch between owners’ expectations andrealistic anticipated building performance.Accordingly professional organizationsrepresenting architects, engineers and ownersare urged to collaborate in developing andpublicizing the value of and availability of practice and documentation aids such as thosesuggested herein.



6

Strengthening Seismic Design Practice

The uniqueness of every construction project

requires the exercise of professional judgmentand a multitude of design and constructiondecisions. In the interest of strengtheningseismic design practice, architects shouldconsider certain concepts and

procedures, adapting them to their own

individual approaches. The considerationsoutlined in Table 1 are proposed as options forimproving design practice, rather than asstandards of accepted practice.

TABLE 1

Options For Improving Architectural Seismic Design Practice

1. Participate in continuing education programs, with special attention to seismic design and

performance.

2. Participate in post-earthquake site visits to examine damage and study patterns of structuralbehavior.

3. Participate in the development of seismic codes and guidelines, work on code committees, andpromote the use of design guidelines.

4. Work with structural engineers who are experienced in seismic design.

5. Develop seismic goals and expectations for each project, jointly with the owner and other membersof the design team. (See Table 3.)

6. Ensure that conceptual and schematic designs are developed with joint architect/engineerparticipation.

7. Develop a scope-of-work definition (a division of tasks between architect, engineer and builder) forincorporation in each architect/engineer contract.

8. Develop formal architect/engineer interaction techniques to deal with basic seismic issues, such as aprofessional interaction guide for all critical aspects of design (site characteristics, configuration,structural system and performance, and nonstructural components). (See Table 2.)

9. Develop seismic performance guidelines and evaluation reports. (See p. 13.)

10. Seek appropriate compensation for seismic design (based on defined scope-of-work and services.)(See Table 4.)

11. Educate owners on seismic design issues.

12. Educate builders on seismic design issues. Encourage owners to discuss seismic design issues withbuilders.

13. Provide independent expert design review for major projects.



7

Professional Interaction in Seismic Design

Architects and engineers, as well as the public,

have an interest in close professional interactionbetween the members of design teams.Adapting model processes of interaction tospecific projects, and using common guidelineshighlighting key seismic design issues needingresolution, may greatly facilitate communicationwithin architect-engineer design teams. (Seechecklist, Table 2.)

Consistent and methodical use of suchguidelines and checklists may materiallyimprove quality control and seismic-designperformance. Architects

and structural engineers practicing in Californiaare encouraged to consider incorporatingversions of these model interaction processesinto their practice manuals. Professionalinteraction and agreement also will be furtheredif principal members of design teams utilizesuch project checklists. Joint efforts by thearchitectural and structural engineeringprofessions could refine and develop suchguidelines, explaining their merits to membersand promoting their availability to all practicingprofessionals.



8

TABLE 2

Seismic Design Checklist to FacilitateArchitect/Engineer Interaction

ItemMinorIssue

ModerateIssue

SignificantIssue Resolution

Goals Life Safety

Damage Control

Continued Post-earthquake Function

Site Characteristics Near Fault

Ground Failure Possibility(Landslide, Liquefaction,Subsidence)

Soft Soil (Long Periods,Amplification, Duration)

Accessibility (Lifelines,Access/Egress)

Adjacency (Up-slope or Down-slope Conditions, Collapse-hazardBuildings Nearby)

Building Configuration

Height

Size EffectArchitectural Concept

Vertical Discontinuity

Soft Story

Setback

Offset

Resistance Elements

Plan Discontinuity

Re-entrant Corner

Eccentric Mass or Stiffness

Adjacency-Pounding Possibility

Structural System Dynamic Resonance

Diaphragm Versatility

Torsion

Redundancy

Deformation Compatibility

Out-of-Plane Vibration

Unbalanced Resistance



9

TABLE 2(continued)

Seismic Design Checklist to FacilitateArchitect/Engineer Interaction

ItemMinorIssue

ModerateIssue

SignificantIssue Resolution

Resistance Location

Drift/Interstory Effect

Strong Column/Weak BeamCondition

Structural Performance

Ductility

Inelastic Demand

Constant or Degrading Stiffness

Damping

Energy Dissipation CapacityYield/Fracture Behavior

Special System (e.g., Base Iso.)

Mixed System

Repairability

Nonstructural Components

Cladding, Glazing

Deformation Compatibility

Mounting System

Random Infill

Ceiling Attachment

Partition AttachmentRigid

Floating

Replaceable Partitions

Stairs

Rigid

Detached

Elevators

MEP Equipment

Special Equipment

Computer/CommunicationsEquipment

Special Building Contents



10

Seismic Goals and Expectations

Preparation of a statement on seismic goals andexpectations can help design team members andowners agree on goals that are reasonably in linewith resources available. Before constructionbegins, agreement by the design team and theowner, including the construction manager, if involved, on a project’s goals and expectationscan help achieve the desired level of performance and limit later surprises due tounexpected earthquake damage. This objectivewill be promoted by making a seismic goals andexpectations statement part of a project’sbuilding program documents.

See Table 3 for a preparation of goals and

expectations statements. The architect shouldorganize the discussion of appropriate goals andstatements, and

ensure that they are fully understood by theowner and design team. The architectural andstructural engineering professions shouldconsider collaborating on a manual on thepreparation of such statements.

The California Council of the AmericanInstitute of Architects (CCAIA) and theStructural Engineers Association of California(SEAOC) should encourage the preparation anduse of seismic goals and expectations statementson all California projects where such use isconsidered appropriate. The contents of suchstatements can then be agreed on by theprincipal parties—design team, contractor, and

owner—and made part of each project’sbuilding program documents.



12

Seismic Performance Guidelines and Evaluation Reports

Agreement on a project’s seismic goals andexpectations makes possible the preparation of specific seismic performance guidelines—aswell as a seismic performance evaluation—foreach building type, configuration, and structuralsystem under active consideration. Performanceguidelines and evaluation reports prepared in theearly stages of each design project can be usedin design-team discussions with the owner andcontractor, to facilitate a meeting of minds onmajor issues of seismic design.

Each seismic performance evaluation canpresent the design-team’s professional opinionregarding key questions about the structure and

the site, such as the following:

1. Does the structure’s configuration haveimportant implications for its seismicperformance?

2. What are the probable linear and nonlinearbehaviors of the structure and its principalcomponents during ground motion?

3. In an earthquake are the building and itsmain components likely to prove brittle andexperience degrading behavior, or isductile performance and stable behavior areasonable expectation?

4. Is the building likely to exhibit unbalancednonlinear behavior, and if so what are theimplications for its earthquakeperformance?

5. What is the structure’s potential fordissipating earthquake energy withoutsuffering undue damage?

6. What is the degree of drift and deformation

compatibility?7. If the structure is damaged, how difficult

and costly are repairs likely to be?

8. Is the building's serviceability andcontinued function an importantconsideration?

9. Is the site on or adjacent to an activeearthquake fault?

10. Would the site geology be likely toincrease ground shaking intensity in an

earthquake?11. Is the site stable?

12. Is the site subject to liquefaction?

13. Are the up-slope and down-slopeenvironments near the site stable?

14. Are building separations adequate toprevent battering (pounding) during anearthquake?

15. Are adjacent buildings collapse hazards?

16. Are hazardous materials stored or used in

the vicinity of the site?

17. Will site access and egress be secureagainst earthquake-caused obstruction?

18. Are transportation, communication andutility lifeline systems vulnerable todisruption or failure?

19. Is the site in an area that is subject toinundation in case of dam failure, orsusceptible to tsunami or seiche damage orflooding?



13

Scope-of-Work Guidelines and Agreements

Costs and economic pressures tend to restrictthe time made available for design. Workingwithin limited budgets, architects and engineers,while following customary practice, maynevertheless leave some design tasks toengineers employed by contractors or vendors(e.g., precast cladding panels, windows, stairs,and elevators). At times, unless carefullymonitored, this can reduce building quality andperformance to levels that may be less thandesirable with respect to seismic safety.

To enhance performance, all the principalparties—designers, owners, contractors, andsub-contractors—should clearly understand the

scope of design work involved in constructionprojects, and the assignment of responsibilitiesand tasks. Agreement should be reached on thebudgeting of adequate fees to pay for thenecessary services. Scope-of-work agreementsseek to allocate and assign tasks properly, and tobudget adequate fees to do what is needed.Lack of agreement early in a project’s life mayincrease the likelihood of omitting tasks,budgeting insufficient funds for necessarydesign services, or making other compromisesthat can adversely affect building quality and

seismic performance. In negotiating suchagreements, architects and engineers areencouraged to educate owners on the benefits of retaining design teams to observe constructionand review implementation of design, in theinterest of achieving good structural resultsthrough effective quality control.

Reducing the likelihood of future claims isanother valuable benefit.

Scope-of-work agreements can be based onguidelines such as those in Table 4. Use of suchguidelines in negotiating agreements may assistdesign professionals in their efforts to convinceowners that providing for modest additionalamounts of professional time during design andconstruction may yield large dividends in thelong run. Scope-of-work agreements could alsobe valuable tools for architects to use in definingand clarifying their roles in design andconstruction.

The architectural and structural engineering

professions should be encouraged to developand publicize the availability of referenceguidelines such as those suggested in Table 4.CCAIA and SEAOC should be encouraged topromote use of such guidelines by practicingprofessionals wherever appropriate, adapted tothe unique circumstances of individual projects.Owners should be encouraged to retainarchitects and engineers to monitor theconstruction processes in all projects. Innegotiations with owners and builders, designteams should be encouraged to seek the

allocation of sufficient funds to pay forappropriate services to improve the seismicperformance of the structures they design,including site review or on-site observationduring construction. Where it is appropriate,scope-of-work agreements should beincorporated into building contracts.



14

TABLE 4

Design Scope-of-Work Guidelines

Activity

Construction Item Design Corrdinate CheckShop

DWGS Sign/StampField

Review

Foundation SE A G SE SE A,SE

Superstructure

Steel Frame SE A SE SE SE A,SE

Concrete Frame SE A SE SE A,SE

P/T Floors V SE SE SE V,SE

Open Web Joists V SE SE SE V,SE

Cladding

Precast V A,SE SE SE V A,SE

Metal V A SE A V AGlass V A A A - A

Stairs A,SE A SE SE V,SE A,SE

Elevator V A SE A,SE V A,SE

Ceilings A A SE A A

Equipment V A SE A V,SE A,SE

MEP Systems MEP A SE MEP MEP MEP

Note: This table represents a hypothetical project and should not be taken as a suggestion forassigning specific responsibilities, which must be uniquely established for each project.

Key: A = ArchitectSE = Structural EngineerMEP = Mechanical, electrical, plumbing servicesV = Vendor or manufacturer of prefabricated componentsG = Geotechnical Engineer



15

Peer Review of Architectural Firms

In addition to encouraging use of consistentdocumentation and procedures, someprofessions use organizational peer reviews orperformance audits to evaluate the methods andprocedures of individual practitioners and firms.Project-specific peer reviews may also considerthe design and other features of individualprojects.

In a typical design profession organizationalpeer review, several experienced architects orengineers spend several days studying aparticipant firm’s stated policies andprocedures, and comparing them to what isactually being done. Because they are effective

in improving standards of practice, suchorganizational peer reviews ought to be usedmore widely by the design professions.

Some insurance companies alreadyrecognize the value of peer review inarchitecture, offering significant premiumreductions as incentives for submitting to a peer-review process, or taking special exams or otheractions intended to improve performance. Forexample, the Design Professionals InsuranceCompany (DPIC) reimburses its policyholdersfor all monies spent for an organizational peer

review up to a maximum of $6,000. Anorganizational peer review examinespolicyholder practices in general management,professional development, project management,human resources management, financialmanagement and business development.

The Design Professional’s InsuranceCompany also reimburses its structuralengineering policyholders for technical peerreviews that evaluate individual projects, fromconceptual design through design calculations,contracts, shop drawing review, and field

observation. All costs of technical peer reviewsof structural engineering firms insured by DPICare paid by DPIC. (August 30, 1991 letter fromDPIC)

The architectural and engineeringprofessions should seek wider use of suchincentives by the insurance industry, based onpeer reviews and other methods of strengtheningstandards of practice. Moreover in California itis imperative that peer reviews include seismic

safety concerns.CCAIA’s Professional Liability Project

Steering Committee has issued a highlyfavorable report on peer review, stronglyencouraging member firms to consider voluntaryparticipation in peer reviews:

Every design firm, whether a one-personfirm or a 100-person firm, has something togain from an objective review of how theirbusiness is managed. Peer review offersthe valuable opportunity to gain insightinto how your business practices andmanagement techniques are working and

how they could be improved. (“PeerReview,” January 1988)

The CCAIA committee recommended the peerreview program of the American ConsultingEngineers Council (ACEC), which focuses onsix areas: overall management, developmentand maintenance of technical competence,project management, human resources, financialmanagement, and business development. TheSeismic Safety Commission should work jointlywith CCAIA to encourage the inclusion of seismic design considerations in peer reviewevaluation procedures. Peer review auditsshould include examination of seismic designpractice, professional interaction betweenarchitects and engineers, and use of the guidesand procedures suggested in this report.



16

Testing and Licensing Architects

Concern about the inadequacy of the nationalarchitectural examination in testing on seismicdesign prompted California authorities toprepare and administer their own state test. Thenew California exam was specially formulatedto include seismic concerns that architectsdesigning in earthquake regions should knowabout. The exam specifications were rewrittento ensure inclusion of questions demonstratingthat those admitted to the profession qualify fora minimum standard of seismic practice. Theleadership shown by the California Board of Architectural Examiners (CBAE) is highlycommendable, and California’s action

subsequently influenced the nationalexamination in architecture as administered bythe National Council of ArchitecturalRegistration Boards (NCARB).

The state board should continue to take allreasonable steps needed to ensure that all whosuccessfully complete the architectural licensingprocess authorizing practice in Californiapossess high levels of seismic awareness andcompetence. It is imperative that all candidateswho acquire licenses for practice in a seismicregion like California be properly tested for

knowledge of the principles of good seismicdesign.

Prompted in part by the example of CBAE,on October 13, 1988, the Seismic SafetyCommission adopted Resolution No. 88-2,“Testing of Civil Engineer License Candidateson Seismic Principles.” In summary, the

commission resolved that:

• “civil engineers practicing in the State of California must be knowledgeable of andbe tested on seismic principles to assure thesafety and adequacy of facilities they areresponsible for,”

• “the term ‘seismic principles’ should beinterpreted broadly as it applies to a widevariety of civil engineering activities,”

• “applicants should demonstrate theirunderstanding of these principles on thelicensing test in a way that is applicable to

real situations,” and

• “understanding these principles will allowcivil engineers with responsible charge forproject location, design, and constructionto exercise the trust that we, the people of the State of California, place in them.”

The resolution was adopted to showCommission support for measures to strengthenthe seismic design portions of the test given tocivil engineering license candidates inCalifornia.

The respective California state licensingboards presently require architects and civilengineers to limit their practices to areas inwhich they have demonstrated competence.Both boards, however, need to emphasize theimportance of these requirements by vigorouslyenforcing all such board rules and activelypromoting greater awareness of therequirements.



17

The Potentials of Architectural Education

Especially because of California’s earthquakehazard, architectural education in this stateshould give special attention to good seismicdesign. It is in the public interest that allarchitecture students who graduate with aprofessional degree and enter the professionshould be familiar with the principles of earthquake-resistant design.

Strengthening Educational Programs

In the United States, architecture andengineering are considered distinct professionsand follow separate educational careers. Forbest results, however, practicing architects andengineers need to work in close collaboration.Through joint programs, schools of architectureand engineering can promote early developmentof architectural students’ understanding of architect-engineer team relationships andresponsibilities.

Further, the seismic-design awareness of graduating architecture students needs to bestrengthened, especially if they are to practice inCalifornia. Interdisciplinary programs caneducate architecture students in thefundamentals of good seismic design, the

seismic consequences of various designdecisions, and methods of analyzing structuresfor seismic resistance. All schools of architecture that prepare students for practice inCalifornia should offer and require adequateinstruction in the basic principles of seismicdesign, where possible in collaboration withschools of engineering.

Improving Faculty Awareness

Architectural school faculty members are not,however, typically well versed in seismic design

principles. Moreover the many competingdemands on curricula and teaching time havelimited the attention given to the crucialresponsibilities of architects for the earthquakeresistance of structures they design. Concertedefforts are needed to ensure that architectureschool faculty become more fully acquaintedwith the importance of seismic design and theproper role of architects in ensuring the seismicresistance of structures built in earthquake

regions.To this end, symposia and seminars should

be developed to familiarize architectural schoolfaculty members with seismic design, emphasizeits importance to the architectural profession,and facilitate the introduction of seismicconsiderations into design studio work. Infuture recruitment of faculty members forteaching roles in building technology, structures,and construction, candidates’ qualificationsshould include a realistic grasp of seismicdesign and its importance in Californiaarchitectural practice.

Promoting Participation in ContinuingEducation

Continuing education is widely used in manyprofessional fields to keep up with state-of-the-art practice. When practice is changing rapidly,continuing education is a key way to maintaincompetence and learn specific new methods andprocedures. Well-designed and well-attendedcontinuing education programs in architecturecould help practicing architects become muchbetter informed on seismic design issues. TheCCAIA’s Professional Liability Project SteeringCommittee commented as follows in introducingits report on continuing education for architects:

...the architect in practice must continuehis/her education to meet public and clientexpectations of proficiency in rapid legaland technical changes affecting the designand construction industry.

CCAIA and its chapters should sponsorcontinuing education programs for architects,and the curricula should include seismic design

as a major topic of instruction. CCAIA,SEAOC, and the Earthquake EngineeringResearch Institute (EERI) should collaborate indeveloping seminars on seismic designinvolving architects and structural engineers.Such programs can improve architect-engineerinteraction in design work and strengthenarchitects’ understanding of the seismicconcerns of structural engineers.

State-mandated participation in continuingeducation is often required for relicensing in a



18

number of fields—e.g., health care, accounting,real estate and law. In California and most otherstates, however, continuing education forarchitects has been voluntary, and participationnot especially strong.

CCAIA’s Professional Liability Committeehas recommended that the CCAIA Board of

Directors consider a policy of mandatorycontinuing

education for architects, primarily to improvethe standards of professional practice, and toreduce liability, litigation and insurancepremiums. Our committee also supports theconcept of mandatory continuing education forarchitects. To implement such a policy,eligibility for relicensing can be conditioned on

participation in continuing education programs,which should include instruction in seismic-design practice and on the need for closearchitect-engineer collaboration.

The insurance industry should beencouraged to expand the use of incentives foractive participation in continuing education,testing, and peer review programs (see alsoabove, “Peer Review of Architectural Firms”).The Seismic Safety Commission shouldencourage the insurance industry to includeseismically related questions in anyexaminations used to qualify Californiaarchitects for premium credits or otherincentives.



20

the most important result of such endeavors isthe positive psychological impact of lookingbeyond the immediate destruction toward thefuture of a rebuilt city.

CCAIA and CBAE should promotemeasures to strengthen California architects’ability to respond quickly and effectively in

helping provide emergency planning andtechnical assistance. To this end, state and localchapters of the AIA should join with theNational AIA Urban Design and PlanningCommittee, Regional Urban Design AssistanceTeams, in developing architects’ capacity forearly response to major disasters, includingearthquakes.

Earthquake Site Visits—Learning from

Earthquakes

Site visits immediately after damaging

earthquakes are probably the best way toenhance architects’ awareness of the effects of seismic forces on various kinds of structures anddesigns. Site visits and post-earthquakeinvestigations can teach design professionals agreat deal about the kinds of structures that arevulnerable to failure, as well as those thatperform well in earthquakes.

Acting both individually and through EERI,SEAOC, and other organizations, manystructural engineers—particularly those having a

special interest in earthquake engineering—havelearned a great deal from site visits made toexamine earthquake damage. Interestedarchitects could likewise benefit frominvolvement in such post-disaster investigations.

Accordingly, concerted efforts are needed toget more architects to make site visits

immediately after damaging earthquakes, and toattend subsequent debriefings. CCAIA andCBAE should seek EERI’s advice in developinga site-visit program based on the highlysuccessful “Learning from Earthquakes”program, or alternatively, CCAIA membersshould participate directly in EERI‘s program.CCAIA should work actively to further suchefforts, and should recommend that local AIAchapters use membership meetings and chaptermedia to inform members on the value of post-earthquake site investigations and debriefings.

By promoting earthquake site visits anddisseminating post-earthquake information,CCAIA and the CBAE can reach a considerablepercentage of the 18,000 practicing architects inCalifornia. After major earthquakes, theprofessional organizations and the licensingboards should plan for and sponsor specialdebriefing workshops for design professionals.Perhaps these could be presented jointly withEERI.

For wide dissemination of lessons learnedfrom earthquakes, the Seismic SafetyCommission should work with CCAIA, CBAE,

EERI, SEAOC and ASCE to sponsor andpromote the preparation of a book on earthquakedamage for use by owners, architects, engineersand other construction professionals. It shouldcontain photographs, graphics and textillustrating and explaining the causes of typicalfailures, and recommending ways to avoid them.



21

Summary of Recommendations

Introduction

Implementation of these recommendations willsignificantly strengthen the effectiveness of architects in earthquake hazard mitigation, andcontribute to good seismic design of buildingsthat are able to perform satisfactorily inearthquakes. We urge CCAIA, CBAE, SEAOCand other appropriatre organizations to supportthese recommenfdations and help carry themout. The Commission will periodically monitorprogress, taking further action as needed.

Strengthening Architects’ Leadership

Roles

1. The California Council of the AmericanInstitute of Architects (CCAIA) shouldpromote architects’ earthquake awarenessand knowledge of seismic safety needs, inorder to strengthen the profession’scommunity and education leadershipcapabilities.

Preparing and Using the References and

Resources

2. CCAIA and the Board of ArchitecturalExaminers (CBAE), along with theStructural Engineers Association of California (SEAOC) and the Board of Registration for Professional Engineers andLand Surveyors, should promote use byarchitects and structural engineers of theguidelines, references, performanceevaluations and other documentsrecommended in this report.

Professional Interaction in Seismic Design

3. CCAIA and SEAOC should identifyopportunities to strengthen processes of professional interaction.

4. CCAIA and SEAOC should identify keyseismic design issues of common interestand concern.

Seismic Goals and Expectations

5. Architects and structural engineers should

collaborate in preparing guidelines on howto draw up seismic goals and expectationsstatements for use in their practice.

6. CCAIA and SEAOC should encouragearchitects and structural engineers to adoptthe practice of preparing seismic goals andexpectations statements for all significantprojects.

7. Seismic goals and expectations statementsshould be prepared for all significantbuilding projects in California. Werecommend that each statement’s contentsbe agreed to by the principal parties—the

design team, the owner and thecontractor—and each statement beincorporated into the building programdocuments of each project.

Seismic Performance Guidelines and

Evaluation Reports

8. In the early stages of significant Californiabuilding projects, architects and engineersshould be encouraged to collaborate inpreparing seismic performance guidelines

for the alternative designs actively beingconsidered. Owners should be prepared topay the fees necessary to support theservices required.

9. Using the performance guidelines, aseismic performance evaluation should beprepared for use in discussing buildingtype, configuration, and structural,nonstructural and mechanical systems withthe owner/builder.

Scope-of-Work Guidelines and Agreements

10. CCAIA and SEAOC should arrange for andcoordinate the preparation of scope-of-work guidelines.

11. CCAIA and SEAOC should activelypromote the use of seismic scope-of-work guidelines by practicing professionals inpreparing agreements for appropriateprojects, clearly spelling out task assignments. It is recommended that,



22

where appropriate, scope-of-work agreements be included in buildingcontracts.

12. Architects and engineers should encourageowners to include monitoring andconstruction observation in the scope-of-work of all projects. In negotiations with

owners/builders, design teams are urged torequest the budgeting of sufficient funds topay for necessary services, including on-site observation during construction.

Peer Review of Architectural Firms

13. In the interest of improving practice, andthereby reducing potential liabilities andlowering insurance premiums, architectureand structural engineering firms should beencouraged to submit to peer review.

14. CCAIA and SEAOC should encourage theinsurance industry to make wider use of premium incentives based on peer reviews.

15. The Seismic Safety Commission shouldwork jointly with CCAIA and theConsulting Engineers Association of California (CEAC) in promoting theinclusion of seismic design considerationsin peer review evaluations.

Testing and Licensing Architects

16. The California Board of ArchitecturalExaminers (CBAE) should continue to takeall reasonable steps needed to promote highlevels of seismic awareness andcompetence on the part of those whosuccessfully complete the architecturallicensing process.

Realizing the Potentials of Architectural

Education

Strengthening Educational Programs

17. All schools of architecture that preparestudents for practice in California shouldprovide and require instruction in the basicprincipals of seismic design, and wherefeasible this should be offered incollaboration with schools of engineering.

Improving Faculty Awareness

18. The California Council of ArchitecturalEducators should provide symposia and

seminars to familiarize architectural schoolfaculty members with seismic design,emphasizing its importance to thearchitectural profession and facilitating theintroduction of seismic considerations intodesign studio work.

19. New faculty members recruited for

teaching roles in architecture/ buildingtechnology should have an understandingof seismic design and its importance forarchitectural practice in California.

Promoting Participation in ContinuingEducation

20. To improve standards, reduce liability andlower insurance premiums, architects areencouraged to support continuingeducation, including instruction in seismicdesign.

21. CCAIA should encourage continuingeducation programs, and through the localchapters provide opportunities forarchitects to participate in voluntarycontinuing education.

22. The Commission should encourage theinsurance industry to expand the use of premium credits as incentives for activeparticipation in continuing education,testing, and peer review programs.Evaluations used to qualify California

architects for premium credits shouldconsider knowledge of seismic design.

23. CCAIA and SEAOC are urged tocollaborate in developing joint seminars onseismic design, involving architects andstructural engineers.

Post-Earthquake Roles of Architects

Rapid Screening and Evaluation of Damaged Buildings

24. CCAIA and CBAE should participate

strongly in Office of Emergency Services(OES) planning for the rapid evaluation of damaged buildings, and encourage theparticipation of interested architects, aswell as other construction professionals.Training programs should be organized inconjunction with other technical groupsinvolved in the OES plan.

Assistance With Recovery and



23

Reconstruction

25. CCAIA and CBAE should be encouragedto promote measures to strengthenCalifornia architects’ ability to provideemergency technical assistance.

26. Local chapters and councils of the AIA

should be encouraged to join

with the National AIA Urban Design andPlanning Committee, Regional UrbanDesign Assistance Teams, in developingarchitects’ capacity to provide emergencytechnical assistance after earthquakes, aswell as other major disasters.

Earthquake Site Visits—Learning from

Earthquakes

27. CCAIA and CBAE should seek EERI’sadvice in developing plans for architects’earthquake site-visits, based on EERI’shighly successful “Learning fromEarthquakes” program or, alternatively,should participate directly in the EERIprogram. Concerted efforts should bemade to encourage architects’ participationin post-earthquake site visits anddebriefings.

28. CCAIA and CBAE should be encouragedto make plans for and sponsor special post-earthquake debriefing workshops forarchitects, perhaps presented jointly withEERI.

29. The Seismic Safety Commission will work with CCAIA, CBAE, EERI and SEAOC topromote the preparation of a book onearthquake damage for use by architects.The book should use photographs, graphicsand text to illustrate and explain the causesof typical structural and nonstructural

failures, and acquaint architects witheffective ways to minimize such failures.



24

Appendix A—Acronyms

ACEC American Consulting Engineer's Council

AIA American Institute of Architecture

AICP American Institute of Certified Planners

ASCE American Society of Civil Engineers

CBAE California Board of Architectural Examiners

CCAIA California Council, American Institute of Architects

CE Civil Engineer

CEAC Consulting Engineers Association of California

DPIC Design Professionals Insurance Company

EERI Earthquake Engineering Research Institute

FAIA Fellow, American Institute of Architects

MEP Mechanical, Electrial, Plumbing

NCARB National Council of Architectural Registration Boards

OES Office of Emergency Services

RUDAT Regional Urban Design Assistance Teams

SE Structural Engineer

SEAOC Structural Engineers Association of California



Appendix B—Notes on Terminology

A number of terms used in the body of this

report have specific meanings. These are briefydiscussed below.

Deformation compatibility: A measure of abuilding’s ability to deform during earthquakesand accommodate deformations without thebattering and premature failure of buildingelements.

Diaphragm: A horizontal, or nearlyhorizontal, system acting to transfer lateralforces to walls, frames, or other resistingelements. The term “diaphragm” includeshorizontal bracing systems.

Drift (story drift): The displacement of onelevel relative to the level above or below.

Ductility: The ability of a material orcombination of materials to withstand repeatedbending and major deformation without fractureor failure.

Geotech: A geotechnical engineer.

Inelastic demand : A building’s response toearthquakes that accounts for behavior beyondthe first onset of damage.

Infill: An unreinforced wall that fills inparts of a structure’s frame of beams andcolumns. The interaction of infill walls withframes can have a significant impact on theoverall seismic response of structures. Infillwalls may also fail during earthquake shaking.

Liquefaction: The transformation of a

granular material from a solid state into aliquefied state due to increased pore-waterpressure.

Offset : A discontinuity in a building’slateral force path, such as an element that doesnot align with the supporting element below.

Pounding: The bumping, battering, orhammering that occurs when two adjacent

inadequately separated structures strike eachother during an earthquake.

Re-entrant corner : Interior corners wherewings of irregular buildings adjoin. Stressesconcentrate at re-entrant corners duringearthquakes.

Richter scale: The most widely usedmeasure for the magnitude of an earthquake.

Seiche: Oscillation of the surface of waterin an enclosed or semi-enclosed basin (lake,bay, or harbor) which can be caused by

earthquake shaking.

Setback : A horizontal offset, such as in theplane of an exterior wall.

Settlement : The sinking or lowering of thegound surface; slope failure.

Soft story: A relatively flexible story in abuilding often at the ground floor where thereare fewer columns, braces, or walls to resistearthquake forces.

Subsidence: The sinking or lowering of theground.

Tsunami: A sea wave produced by largedisplacements of the ocean bottom, often theresult of earthquakes or volcanic activity; alsoknown as a seismic sea wave.

Yield stress: The stress at which a buildingelement will become damaged and no longerreturn to its original shape.

architectural practice & earthquake hazards

Documents