DOCUMENT RESUME

ED 330 038 EA 022 732

AUTHOR Reitherman, RobertTITLE Reducing the Risks of Nonstructural Eart:lquake

Damage: A Practical Guide. Earthquake HazardsReduction Series 1.

INSTITUTION Scientific Service, Inc., Redwood City, Calif.SPONS AGENCY California State Seismic Safety Commission,

Sacramento.; Federal Emergency Management Agency,Washington, D.C.

REPORT NO FEMA-74PUB DATE Jun 85NOTE 168p.; Developed under contract to the Southern

California Earthquake Preparedness Project.PUB TYPE Guides - Non-Classroom Use (055) -- Reports -

Research/Technical (143)

EDRS PRICE MF01/PC07 Plus Postage.DESCRIPTORS Annotated Bibliographies; Buildings; Checklists; Cost

Effectiveness; Cost Estimates; *Earthquakes;Emergency Programs; *Facility Guidelines; *FacilityImprovement; Facility Requirements; GovernmentPublications; Natural Disasters; Office Machines;*Safety; *Seismology; Structural Elements(Construction)

IDENTIFIERS Federal Emergency Management Agency; *NonstructuralElements (Construction)

ABSTRACT

The purpose of this booklet is to provide practicalinformation to owners, operators, and occupants of office andcommercial buildings on the vulnerabilities posed by earthquakedamage to nonstructural items and the means available to deal withthese potential problems. Examples of dangerous nonstructural damagesthat have occurred in past earthquakes include broken glass, theoverturning of tall and heavy shelves, falling overhead lightfixtures, ruptured piping containing hazardous substances, andfalling pieces of brickwork or precast concrete panels. Typicalnonstructural items are described in terms of their earthquakedamageability relative to different intensities of shakin4. Chartsillustrate high-moderate-low statements of life safety and outagerisks and percent replacement cost estimates. The most promisingcountermeasures for protecting each item from earthquake damage areprovided. Photographs illustrate actual instances of damage to eachtype of nonstructural item. Within the document are 23 figures;appended are 12 references and a 14-item annotated bibliography.(MLF)

***********************************************************************Reproductions supplied by EDRS are the best that can be made

from the original document.***********************************************************************

FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY FEMA 74 / June 1985

Reducing the Risksof NonstructuralEarthquake Damage: A Practical Guide

EARTHQUAKE HAZARDS REDUCTION SERIES 1

Li

"14111744,171-4Tralleiritiiinatral%.

ITITITITITITtarITUIVIL414wi

, p a.. ;

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATIONOfke of Educational Research and Improvement/EDU ATIONAL RESOURCES INFORMATION

CENTER (ERIC)

: This document has been reproduced asreceived I rom the person or organizationoriginating it

I Minor changes hay) been made to improveeeproduction quality

Points of view or opimons stated 11 this documem do nol necessarily represent officialOERI Position or policy

3

The work that provided the basis for this publication was supported by joint

funding through a cooperative agreement between the Federal Emergency Management

Agency and the California Seismic Safety Commission. The recommendations and

suggestions included in this document are intended to improve earthquake

preparedness, response and mitigation. The contents do not necessarily reflect

the views avid policies of the Federal Emergency Management Agency and do not

guarantee the safety of any individual, structure, or facility in an earthquake

situation. Neither the United States nor the State of California assumes

liability for any injury death, or property damage which occurs in connection

with an earthquake.

Reducing the Risksof NonstructuralEarthquake Damage: A Practical Guide

EARTHQUAKE HAZARDS REDUCTION SERIES 1

JUNE 1985

Developed under contract to theSouthern California Earthquake Preparedness Project

by Robert ReithermanScientific Service, Inc.517 East Bayshore RoadRedwood City, CA 94063

FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY

Preface

This project was prepared under contract to theSouthern California Earthquake Preparedness Project(SCEPP), a joint State-Federal effort. The State ofCalifornia participation in SCEPP is coordinated by theCalifornia Seismic Safety Commission, while the FederalEmergency Management Ageney represents the Federalgovernment. Gilbert Najera was the SCEPP projectmanager for the development of this booklet, and SCEPPExecutive Director Paul Flores, and his predecessorRichard Andrews, also were involved in the determinationof the content of this booklet and administration of thecontract.

This booklet was prepared by Scientific Service,Inc., a firm specializing in engineering and emergencyplanning consulting related to natural and manmadehazards. It was written and researched by RobertReither man, with the assistance of Dr. T. C. Zsutty,representing architectural and structural engineeringexpertise in the field of nonstructural earthquake damagerespectively. Previous research funded by the National

iii

Science Foundation and conducted by Scientific Service,"Computer-Aided Earthquake Analysis For Businesses AndOrganizations," lead to the development of COUNT-ERQUAKE, a computer program which includes an item-by-item analysis of nonstructural components, as well asother research products which were utilized in thisproject. Graphic design was executed by Maureen Ineich,and word processing and editing were accomplished byMichele Boyes, Larue Wilton and Evelyn Kaplan. ChuckWilton, president of Scientific Service, provided overallmanagement review as well as a detailed critique ofdrafts of the booklet.

The following companies or governmental organiza-tions and the management staff members who providedliaison services aided the project by providing tours oftheir facilities so that valid composite models ofrepresentative office, retail, and government buildingscould be compiled: Barry N. Himel and Eugene F. HuberII, Security Pacific National Bank, Los Angeles; Ed Manes,County of San Bernardino, San Bernardino; Warren Hendry

Von's Grocery Markets, San Bernardino. Nothing in thisbooklet should be construed to refer to any of thesefacilities specifically, since it is only the typical,representative building and its nonstructural portionswhich this booklet treats and discusses.

In addition to the photo credits which will be foundwith each photograph, the assistance of the followingindividuals should be acknowledged for generouslyproviding their time as well as access to their photographsfor publication here: John F. Meehan, Research Directorand Principal Structural Engineer, Office of the StateArchitect, Sacramento; William T. Holmes, structuralengineer, Rutherford and Chekene Engineers, SanFrancisco; Professor Anshel J. Schiff, MechanicalEngineering Department, Purdue University; ProfessorRichard Miller, Civil Engineering Department, Universityof Southern California; Christopher Arnold, President,BSD, Inc., San Mateo.

iv

ContentsPreface iii

1. Introduction 1

Purpose and DefinitionsIntended AudioweLimitations r\Significance of Nonstructural Earthquake DamageGeographic Location and Seismic RiskEarthquake Prediction

2. Typical Conditions Found In Office, Retail, 15and Government BuildingsHigh Rise Office BuildingsRetail StoresLow-rise Government Services Buildings

3. Individual Nonstructural Items: 30Vulnerability and CountermeasuresLarge Computers and Office MachinesElectrical EquipmentMiscellaneous Office FurnishingsFragile ArtworkTall File CabinetsDesk Top Computers and Office EquipmentEmergency Power GeneratorsFreestanding Movable PartitionsBuilt-in PartitionsWindowsSuspended CeilingsTall Shelving

Containers of Hazardous MaterialsFire ExtinguishersExterior Ornamentation and AppendagesLight FixturesHeating-Ventilating-Air Conditioning EquipmentHeating-Ventilating-Air Conditioning DistributionWater HeatersElevatorsPipingStairwaysParapetsHanging Space Heaters

4. Developing Earthquake Protection Programs 57Estimating VulnerabilitiesEstimating CostsImplementation Strategies:

5. Emergency Planning Guidance 66Earthquake PlansTrainingExercisesMaster Earthquake Planning Checklist

6. Facilities Development Guidelines 73ScopeResponsibility

10

General IntentPerformance CriteriaQuality AssurancePerformance CriteriaCoordination With Non-seismic

Specifications, Codes, GuidelinesEarthquake Provisions of Building Codes

and StandardsPrescriptive DetailsFees

7. Appendix: Structural Damage 78Old Masonry BuildingsTilt-upsHouse-over-garageMobile HomesNon-ductile Reinforced Concrete Frame BuildingsPre-cast Buildings with Pre-existing Distress

8. References 82

9. Annotated Bibliography 84

1 1

vi

1. Introduction

Purpose and DefinitionsThe purpose of this booklet is to provide practical

information to owners, operators, and occupants of officeand commercial buildings on the vulnerabilities posed byearthquake damage to nonstructural items and the meansavailable to deal with these potential problem& At theoutset, two terms frequently used in the earthquakeengineering field should be defined:

Structural - (as in "structural damage," "structuralcomponent or member," "structural performance"): Theportions of a building that hold it up and resist gravity,earthquakes, wind, and other types of loads are calledstructural. Structural portions of buildings includecolumns (posts, pillars); beams (girders, joists); floor orroof sheathing, slabs, or decking; load-bearing walls (orwalls designed to hold up the building rather than merelydivide up space or keep out the elements as nonstructuralwalls do); and foundations. Typically, in a buildingplanned by design professionals, the structure is analyzedand designed in detail by a structural engineer. See Fig.1 for a diagram of structural as distinct fromnonstructural parts of a typical building. Note that mostof the structure of a typical building is concealed fromview by nonstructural materials.

12 1

Nonstructural - (as in "nonstructural damage,""nonstructural item," "nonstructural performance ):The nonstructural portions of a building include every partof it and all of its contents with the exception of thestructure, or in other words, everything except thecolumns, floors, beams, etc. Common nonstructuralitems include ceilings, windows, office equipment,computers, inventory stored on shelves, files, airconditioners, electrical equipment, furrthings, lights, etc.Typically, nonstructural items are not analyzed byengineers, and may be either specified by architects,mechanical engineers (who design heating-ventilating-airconditioning systems and the plumbing for largerbuildings), electrical engineers, or interior designers, orare purchased without the involvement of any designprofessional by owners or tenants after construction of abuilding.

There are two specific objectives here:1. Aid the user of this booklet in determining

which nonstructural items are most vulnerable toearthquakes and are of most concern.

2. Point the way toward the implementation ofcost-effective countermeasures.

13

-,,,,,:,......-- ...400411041.S.0 i, weg911= r.1156. ----571.1 ria/7.......m....-"I-r------- '"'IllIllrIIIIIIIb' *-'' 1..---------. ii.i12.1,

...4 _.....1al c=:1______-__, --111110"--- ...____......1.0006i-., , __ _ z, _.

.-...-:-.-1.7-_,,r- la temi._:.:, -,--.........------Z----..-- _--!---...---eum--.----______2,... ,-- --.....p..- -.6216.- "...moan.- -"".....-o=.._

----,---- --__ -- -....- --"...".'-_

..."'tL ''' --"4111111.0"" -41111 ,..s.........--- ,,,--.0- ' I

---,---:.-r.44,-

MEIN

4

"'

Is+

.-.... r 4., .....r' . ' . ,. NKr=''_. l -Il

_.._-1 4

1 .I-N,.. II. . ...,.. .- 'Mr"... ..L.,

.... N'......'...."'-e............................

-..14 ,..... 0 1111 ..._.,=-_---.....-4,,..4.;- ., ..., AA,4

----..i.........1r ------..... ----:-...- , lax arm. k-,/q, '1,4.. ?...'

I IPr 1 ..../-...

_* : ,

t,

- =dill". ',441iip-

, -.......... ...1.,,,-dal iiim IN pi ..........111111111.p-

tip ii: ," Una,- )4 , I.

.NOWIP

A ,,A.A.

111111111111

1,4

12-

u5

1' -

Intended AudienceThis booklet has been written with non-engineers in

mind: building owners, facilities managers, maintenancepersonnel, store or office managers, corporate/agencydepartment heads, business proprietors. The intent is toexplain in simple terms the sources ol the earthquakeproblems and point the way toward the most promisingcountermeasures to consider in coping with theseproblems. (Note that "coping with" rather than"completely eliminating" these problems is our subject:Feasible techniques of reasonable cost for the typicalcase, rather than impractical or extravagant measures,are our subject matter.)

In some cases, self-diagnosis and self-implemen-tation by the non-engineer may be adequate, and anattempt has been made to provide enough detail to allowfor complete implementation of some of the simplerprotective measures. There are limits to the self-helpapproach, however, as explicitly stated below.

The types of buildings covered in this booklet arethe most common kinds of office and commercialfacilities. Industrial, medical, transportation, or otherspecialized types of facilities may have their own uniqueproblems and characteristics, though much uf relevanceto these other types of facilities can be found in thisbooklet also.

LimitationsIf this were a booklet that explained how a person

could administer his or her own physicel imam, diagnoseany health problems, and preseribe and carry out theappropriate treatment, the obvious question would arise:How far along that process can an untrained personproceed before requiring the services of a physician?Wouldn't the layperson get into trouble trying to practiceself-help medical care?

1 5

In a similar manner, there are limitations and caveatsthat should be made explicit in this booklet's attempt toinstruct laypersons in self-help earthquake engineering.In addition to the individual notes found later which pointout specific areas where expertise is required, the generaldisclaimer should be made here that the use ofearthquake engineering expertise is always desirable toimprove the reliability of identifying and reducingearthquake risks. It is possible to think of exampleswhere self-help engineering, just like self-help medicine,has done more harm than good. If in doubt about ahealth problem, consult a doctor, and if in doubt aboutthe "seismic health" of a facility, consult a structuralengineer. On the other hand, a number of self-helptechniques are commonly recommended by doctors, suchas taking one's temperature, treating minor common coldswith commonsense '..usures rather than expensive tripsto the doctor, managing one's own diet with onlyoccasional professional advice, and so on. Similarly, thisbooklet attempts to provide useful advice for self-helpearthquake protection measures and presumes the advicewill be applied wisely and that expert assistance will beobtained where necessary.

Significance of Nonstruettral DamageWhy is nonstructural earthquake damage of concern?

Isn't collapse of buildings, which is a structural ratherthan nonstructural problem as defined above, the onlycritical potential problem?

Life Safety - The first reason for concern is thatpeople could be and have be4n hurt by this type ofdamage. If a 25-pound fluorescent light fixture is notproperly fastened to the ceiling, breaks loose during theshaking, and falls on a person's head, it is easy tovisualize the resulting injury. Examples of dangerousnonstructural damage which have occurred in pastearthquakes include broken glass, the overturning of tall

3 16

and heavy shelves, falling overhead light fixtures,ruptured piping containing hazardous materials (mostcommonly natural gas but also more hazardous substancesin many ies), falling pieces of decorative brickworkon older buildings or falling pieces of pre-east concretepanels on newer buildings. See Figure 2.

By and large, the advances in earthquakeengineering made in recent decades have beensuccessfully applied to the task of making the structureof buildings in California safer, but there has beencomparatively little application of this technicalknowledge to the nonstructural portions of buildings.There is a small chance that a building will collapse, butthere is a greater chance that nonstructural portions ofthe building will be damaged. In past large Californiaearthquakes, such as the 1908 San Francisco, 1933 LongBeach, or 1971 San Fernando earthquake, only a fractionof a percent of the buildings collapsed. The odds are inyour favor then, although the weakest of our buildings cancollapse in moderate or large earthquakes. Collapse,though statistically unlikely, is obviously the most seriousconsequence to be concerned about, and the majorweaknesses which can lead to collapse are largelyrecognizable ahead of time by structural engineers.Because the structural topic is important but outside thescope of this booklet, it has been only covered in passingin the Appendix.

Property Loss - Recent Federal estimates ofearthquake property damage after selected future majorearthquakes in California are shown in Figure 3. Notethat the immediate property loss attributable to contents,which are only one part of the nonstrueture of a building(the air conditioning system, partitions, etc. are notmovable contents), is estimated to be a third of the totalloss.

17 4

A few individual cases will help illustrate thatnonstructural damage can be costly. In the 1971 SanFernando earthquake, a survey of 25 commercial buildingsrevealed that tural damage accounted for 3% of thetotal dam ectrical and mechanical for 7%, exteriorfinishes 34 and interior finishes 58%. A survey of 50idgh rise _, which were far enough away from theearthquake fault to experience only mild shaking, showedthat none had major structural damage, 43 suffereddamage to drywall or plaster partitions, 18 suffereddamaged elevators, 15 had broken windows, and 8 incurreddamage to air conditioning systems, (Ref. 1). In thecase of one seven story Holiday Inn in this 1971

earthquake, damage representing over 10% of theconstruction cost was experienced. Of this $383,000 indamage in 1983-value dollars, only $5,000 was structuraldamage, while $358,000 was nonstructural, (Ref. 2). Theoriginal 1971 dollar figures of $2000 in structural damageand $143,000 in nonstructural damage have beenmultiplied by 2.5 to account for inflation from 1971 to1983.

Reporting on the damage in a large multistoryoffice building damaged in the 1972 Managua earthquakein Nicaragua, two earthquake engineers noted that "thestructural performance of the building was good . . . interms of non-structural damage, the building was a mess. . . in the end, although the building remainedstructurally sound the non-structural components were ashambles and the rehabilitation is very slow and veryexpensive." (Ref. 3.)

Interruption of Essential Functions - In addition tothe life safety and property loss considerations, there isthe additional possibility that nonstructural damage willmake it difficult or impossible to carry out the functionsnormally accomplished in a facility. After the serious

18

a. VA Hospital, 1971 San Fernando earthquake b. Banco Centrale, 1972 Nicaragua earthquake

c. Olive View Hospital telephone equipment, 1971San Fernando earthquake

d. Banco Centrale, 1972 Nicaragua earthquake

credits: a, b, c, d: John F. Meehan Figure 2

Examples of Hazardous Nonstructural Earthquake Dwnage

5 19

Fault

Loss toBuildings

($ in Billions)

Loss ofContents

($ in Billions)

Total Loss

($ in Billions)

Northern San Andreas 25 13 38

Hayward 29 15 44

Newport-Inglewood 45 24 69

Southern San Andreas 11 6 17

Estimates uncertain by a possible factor of two to three.

Source: Federal Emergency Management Agency, "An Assessment Of The Consequences And

Preparations For A Catastrophic California Earthquake; Findings And ActionsTaken," January 1981.

Figure 3

Estimates of Property Losses For Representative Earthquakes

6 0 0

life safety tireats have been dealt with, post-earthquakedowntime or redueed productivity is often the mostserious risk.

In one 27-story high rise in Los Angeles subjectedto only a light or light-to-moderate intensity of shakingin the 1971 San Fernando earthquake, the tenantcompanies in the building suffered about $37,000 in 1983-value dollars in lost employee labor losses, primarilybecause the elevators were out of service. (Operation ofthe elevators immediately after the earthquake, beforethey had been checked, caused tangled cables to foul, anddamage occurred which have been avoided.) Thebuilding owner's property damage losses, primarily due toelevator repairs and partition patching and painting,amounted to $108,000. In a nearby 19-story officebuilding where the elevators were not damaged, occupantsincurred about $14,000 in expenses to clean-up interiordamage and disarray, largely attributable to re-filing.These costs eorresponded to a light amount ofnonstructural damage. The earthquake reeording instru-ments in these two buildings recorded maximumaccelerations or shaking intensities only about one fifth asstrong as have been recorded in other buildings inearthquakes and the damage could have been much worse(Ref. 4). In some eases, clean-up costs or the value oflost employee labor are not the key measures of the post-earthquake impact of the earthquake. For example, fora financial business which must remain operational on anhour-by-hour or minute-by-minute basis to maintainessential services and remain in communication withtransactions occurring elsewhere, damage to communi-cations or computer equipment, or spilled files, representless tangible but more significant outage costs.

Causes of Nonstructural Damage - How does anearthquake cause nonstructural damage? One of theeasiest mechanisms to visualize, but the one whichaccounts for the least amount of damage, is the category

721

of direct geologic impacts, such as the rupture of theearth along a fault line, a landslide caused by the shaking,tsunamis (seismic sea waves), or liquefaction (thetemporary "mushy" condition of certain types of normallyfirm ground when the soil shakes). These effects areusually localized though they may be severe; they arebeyond the scope of this booklet.

Moving on to our subject of the effects of theshaking of the ground on buildings and more particularlytheir nonstructural portions, two different damageprocesses can be identified: inertial or shaidng effectson the nonstructural objects themselves, and the imposeddistortion of their shape which is caused by the swayingof the surrounding structure on built-in items.

Inertia - When the building is shaken, the base ismoved violently by the moving earth during theearthquake, and every portion above experiences inertiaforces, similar to whiplash effects in rapidly acceleratingor decelerating automobiles. Although the engineeringaspects of earthquake inertial forces are slightly morecomplex than a single principle of physics, the law firstformulated by Sir Isaac Newton, F = ma, or the force isequal to the mass times the acceleration, is the basicprinciple involved. In general, greater forces result ifthe mass is greater (if the building or object within thebuilding weighs more) or if the acceleration or severity ofthe shaking is greater.

A file cabinet, emergency power generator,freestanding bookshelf, office equipment, or items storedon shelves or racks can be damaged because of inertia:They are shaken, and if there is only friction to restrainthem, a severe earthquake can be capable of causingthem to overturn, impact against other objects, or fall tothe floor. The heavier the file cabinet, emergency powergenerator, etc., the greater the earthquelm forces.

22

To design bolted connections, restraining chains orwires, or other protective devices, engineers use apercentage of the weight of the object as the horizontalearthquake force which must be resisted by their designs.There are a/so vertical earthquake forces to consider.The Uniform Building Code (UBC) is the model code usedin the western United States, and its seismic regulations,which are largely developed and periodically revised as aservice of the Structural Engineers Association ofCalifornia, are influential as a model in many othercountries as well. Some major cities in California, suchas Los Angeles or San Franciseo, publish their ownbuilding codes, although these codes usually closelyresemble the Uniform Building Code.

The UBC, in its Table 23-J, lists the horizontalseismic force factors which should be used in the designof partitions, parapets, chimneys, ornaments, tanksupports, storage racks over 8 feet tall, equipment ormachinery, and suspended ceilings. Depending upon thetype of building (the design forces are greater for firestations than foz ordinary office buildings, for example),the geographic location, and other factors, the usualspecified horizontal force is 30% of the weight of theobject. If the loaded storage rack weighs 1000 pounds,the engineer must design its bracing and its attachmentto the floor and/or wall to handle horizontal forces in anydirection of 300 pounds, for example.

Surveys of actual buildings indicate that manynonstructural items are never designed for any horizontalforces but are instead installed according to commonconstruction practice that varies little from seismic tonon-seismic areas. The above listing of nonstructuralitems or components is also rather general, except for anoccasional specifically described item such as "storageracks with upper storage level at more than 8 feet inheight." Many nonstructural items (such as the more

23 8

common office or retail situation of storage shelves up toabout 7 feet six inches in height) are not covered at allby the letter of the law. The fact that the building codeis not as specific about these nonstructural items as it isabout the structural portions of buildings is indicative ofthe general intent of the earthquake regulations toprovide a minimum level of life safety and to avoidlegislating property damage-control measures. In gener-al, "life safety" and "prevention of structural collapse"have been used almost interchangeably in the thinkingunderlying the earthquake regulations in the buildingcode, although it is becoming apparent that there aresignificant nonstructural dangers to life and limb as well,and in some cases, potential nonstructural property lossesor outages are strong reasons for obtaining more than thecode minimum level of protection.

The point of this discussion of the building code isthat the problem of nonstructural earthquake damage isnot automatically solved for you, the owner or occupantof a building, by mere conformance of construction withthe building code.

Distortion of the Enclosing Building - The othermajor way, besides inertia or shaking, in which anonstructural item may be damaged, is the imposeddeformation problem: When the building structure isshaken, it must distort or bend out of shape; the top ofa mid-rise building may lean over a few inches and in theease of a tall office tower this may actually amount to afew feet. Windows, partitions and other items that aretightly locked into the structure are forced to go alongfor the ride, and as the columns or walls lean over acertain amount and become slightly out-of-square if onlyfor an instant, the window or partition must also leanover the same amount if it is tightly confined. The morespace around a pane of glass where it is mounted betweenstops or moulding strips, the more distortion the pane can

24

accommodate before the glass its& is forced to distort.Brittle materials like glass or plvter or drywall partitionscannot tolerate any significant distortion, so once thegape around their edges are taken up by the motion, theywill quickly crack. Most partitions are damaged notbecause they themselves are shaken and are damaged byinertia as discussed above, but rather because the buildingaround them distorts.

Shaking Intensity and Nonstrueteral Damage -Earthquake shaking is difficult to precisely define. Theground shakes to a certain extent or with a certainamplitude, but the shaking also must be described interms of its frequency. Low frequency vibrations areslow rocking motions while high frequency motions aremore of a chattering, rapidly vibrating type of motion.Earthquakes typically contain a complex mixture offrequencies of motion. The descriptive scale shown inFigure 4 takes only the overall extent of motion intoaccount and not its frequency content, and hence, it isonly a simplified and largely non-quantified description ofground shaking. However, it will be adequate for ourpurpose of approximltely estimating nonstructuraldamage. This intensity scale, like others in use in othercountries, is properly shown with Roman numerals, whichindicate the lack of precision.

The scale in Figure 4 is essentially the ModifiedMecca lli intensity scale, which was originally devised bythe Italian seismologist Gitiseppe Pca lli in 1902,modified (hence the "Modified" in I lame) by twofamous American seismologists, Harry leood and FrankNeumann, in 1931, and further revised by another famousseismologist, Charles Richter in 1956. In the versionshown here, we have taken the liberty of further revisingthe scale to emphasize nonstructural effects common tothe present day California eontext. In so doing itborrows extensively from work by Dr. Robert Nason of

25

the U.S. Geological Survey, who has studied thecorrelation of the toppling of items from shelves andother nonstructural effects with the intensity of groundshaking as measured by instruments and as observed fromother effects.

Although the Modified Mecca lli is a 12-point scale,levels XI and XII are not used here since they describesoils failures ("rails bent greatly," "underground pipelinescompletely out of service") which can occur at variousintensities of shaking. The other traditional descriptionsfor XI and XII, such as "damage nearly total", are notreferenced to construction characteristics (damage towhat is nearly total?) and do not appear relevant in theCalifornia context. "Damage nearly total" is not anaccurate description of shaking-caused damage for anygiven neighborhood that underwent the 1906 SanFrancisco, 1964 Alaska, 1971 San Fernando, or other U.S.earthquakes, and hence it is difficult to apply. In theseearthquakes, only a minority of buildings in any givenarea collapsed, and on the scale of a city, those buildingsreceiving extreme or total damage were in a very smallminority. These explanations are added to indicate whythe scale as shown here differs from that found instandard textbooks.

The individual numbered intensity levels arebracketed here into 3 large categories: light, moderate,and severe. These 3 levels of intensity are used indescribing the vulnerability of individual nonstructuralitems to shaking in Chapter 3. Greater precision isgenerally not particularly useful nor scientifically validunless a detailed study of a given building and itsnonstructural items is conducted.

Keep in mind that the intensity scale, or predictionsof how the ground will shake in future earthquakes atparticular locations, are attempts to rank the intensity of

IHHI I-IV: from barely perceptible to mild shakingI V without damage

V: Felt by nearly everyone, and many are awakened if the earthquake occurs at night. Some dishes or other fragileI- shelf items fall and break. Cracked plaster or drywall in a few places. Movement of trees, power lines, and other tallex flexible objects noticed. Pendulum clocks may stop. Water may slosh in swimming pools. Only a few shelf items in7.1 grocery stores shifted or fallen. Flexible items such as liquids in containers, tall floor lamps or chandeliers, etc., may

I.

move more than other more rigid objects such as furniture. Windows or contents of cabinets may rattle.

VI: Felt by ali, many frightened. The top portion of some unreinforced brick chimneys on houses are damaged. Somefurniture shifted slightly. Shelf items throughout a grocery store may fall, but not to the extent that it is difficult towalk through all of the aisles. Cracks or occasional falling of pieces of plaster. Occasional large storefront windowscracked.

VII: Everyone notices and is alarmed by the earthquake. Persons driving automobiles notice the shaking.Unreinforced chimney damage common to older houses but affects less than half of buildings. Many or most aisles of

11,1. grocery stores blocked by fallen shelf items. Some spring mounted but not seismically restrained heating-ventilating-airconditioning equipment begins to shift but generally does not fall off its spring supports.

S VIII: Many find it difficult to keep balance while standing. Shaking interferes with driving of automobiles.0 Widespread unreinforeed chimney damage. Pipes may leak in buildings. Suspended ceilings without diagonal bracingI partially fall. Spring mounted mechanical equipment without seismic restrainers breaks supports and falls. TallL unanchored shelving and storage racks lose contents or tip over.

rIX: The shaking is very alarming to everyone and it is very difficult to stand. Widespread overturning of unanchoredequipment if about twice as tall as wide, including some television set-sized items on tables or desks. Most unanchored

,Jcc shelving overturns. Sliding of other unanchored items.ma

tic X: Unusually severe ground motion, such as has been observed in only a very few earthquakes. People thrown to theI ground and cannot stand up. Most unanchored nonstructural objects except tables and desks fall. Objects do not flyL through air but may bounce and overturn due to vertical shaking.

27

Figure 4Modified Merealli Intemdty Scale

(modified further to emphasize California nonstructural damage indicators)

10 28

shaking of the ground -- the shaking in upper levels ofbuildings is usually amplified and more severe, and thuson the tenth floor of a building the local effects might bedescribable as VIII on the scale, whereas on the groundfloor it might appear to be only VI or VII. For talloffice buildings, more on this topic is included in Chapter3.

More frequently reported in the press is themagnitude of an earthquake, partly because magnitudecan be deciphered and calculated from a seismographicrecord within minutes and reported to the media, whileintensities are only slowly plotted on maps after reportsare received over a period of weeks.

Magnitude is a quantitative indication of the overallsize of the earthquake. A large magnitude earthquake, a7 or an 8, may cause high intensities nearby but onlysmall intensities further away, for example, which is quitelogical if it remembered that the magnitude number is asingle number describing the overall size of theearthquake, while obviously the shaking intensity cannotbe the same everywhere. Even a magnitude 5 or 6earthquake can cause significant nonstructural damageand major structural damage if it occurs nearby: The1933 Long Beach and 1971 San Fernando earthquakes wereboth only about magnitude 6 1/2 earthquakes, forexample, but they caused some severe damage over theareas of the Los Angeles metropolitan region where theywere centered.

Charles Richter, who with his colleague BenoGutenberg devised the first magnitude s..ale in 1935, hasexplained that "Magnitude can be compared to the poweroutput in kilowatts of a broadcasting station. Localintensity on the Mercalli scale is then comparable to thesignal strength on a receiver at a given locality, in effect,the quality of the signal. Intensity like signal strength

2 11

will generally fall off with distance from the source,although it also depends on the local conditions and thepathway from the source to the point", (Ref. 5).

Geographic Location And Seismic RiskApproximately 80% of California's population, and

perhaps an even higher percentage of its industrial,commercial, and governmental buildings, are locatedwithin the Uniform Building Code's highest seismic zoneout of the five zones in the United States. Theremainder of the state is located in the next highest zone.See Figure 5.

These Un:form Building Code seismic zones are usedby engineers in the earthquake design of most ordinarybuildings and any nonstructural components which mightreceive their attention. The zones take into account thefact that in California there are numerous activeearthquake faults which could generate damagingearthquakes, that some faults rupture and causeearthquakes more frequently than others, and that somefaults are capable of causing larger earthquakes thanothers. If only the well-known San Andreas Fault wereconsidered, much less territory would be included in thehighest seismic zone. Other maps have been prepared byresearchers which attempt to predict how the ground willshake from a single given earthquake, such as on thenorthern or southern segments of the San Andreas, but amore general map such as in Figure 5 is a better basis forevaluating all of the potential earthquakes which couldaffect a given site. For some important facilities, suchas hospitals or major tall buildings, more detailedestimates of how the ground will shake at a given locationare produced by seismologists and engineers. For ourpurposes, the map of Figure 5 is adequately detailed.

The engineer uses this map in carrying outcomputations of seismic forces, but the non-engineer can

3

%::.::::44;:.:::::.::1.*:::....$:::::::::::%..A.A...

**,!::::.:..

liviii Hiatiavr .N::

.4...k;:lb:5-.%i% 714;49::)...::::::;.:0

1..

AsarNAEPilp

i.::;....;;.:;:°.:01.....%%:.0%.v.%..IN%:.01.0%.....

%:. ..!..0:1EVS

..%

...x.NNItaik

...

4:iii...:;..kt.

1. kts.......

..t. HibmosyrIA .501414K. zoNskt .. (ZONe 4)4 %%

SANPRAVsIGIC-.0

1/ feit/ f/i/AP

./...t.1Reproduced from the Uniform Buil'ing Code, 1982edition, copyright 1982, with permission of thepublisher, the International Conference of BuildingOfficials

NOTE- t zot..10 4 HIG,HOST ,91alt4A1C... ZONE.ZoNE. 0 zs 1.4:AME-QT 4E-644/11C. ZONE

3 1

Figure 5

Uniform Building Code Seismic Zones

123 2

obtain an approximate idea of the risk of experiencingground motion of different intensities from this map aswell. The word "approximate" is used partly because thetask of estimating how often a fault will cause anearthquake of a certain magnitude, and how this energywill be transmitted to and shake a particular site, iscomplicated by many uncertainties. In Figure 6, anattempt has been made to associate the chance ofexperiencing different intensities of shaking with the twodifferent seismic zones for California. The light,moderate, and severe intensities correspond to Figure 4.Note that in zone 4, there is virtually a 100% chance ofexperiencing light shaking or worse during 25 years; inzone 3, there is about a 60% chance of experiencing atleast light shaking.

For companies with elaborate risk managementprograms, these probabilities may be useful, incombination with the estimated effects of shaking onindividual nonstructural components as presented inChapter 3, in cost-benefit analyses. For most purposes,however, the following guidance is probably adequate: Iflocated in zone 4, the highest or worst seismic zone, planfor a severe intensity and look carefully at theinformation in the next chapter in this light. If locatedin zone 3, the moderate level of intensity is a reasonablebasis for planning. Adjust this general guidance if afacility is more or less important than average: Just asthe building code imposes more severe requirements onthe fire station than the ordinary building, so it wouldmake sense to plan for a severe intensity of shaking inzone 3, rather than just moderate, if an especiallyvaluable or essential piece of computer equipment,valuable artwork, or especially hazardous materials wereinvolved. In any event, the minimum requirements ofthe Uniform Building Code or its local variant, which islegally binding rather than merely voluntary, should befollowed even if merely minor nonstructural remodellingwork is being done which does not require a buildingpermit.

1333

Earthquake PredictionIn the event that practical methods for predicting

the time, place, and size of earthquakes are developed inthe future, what would be the effect on the validity ofthe guidance offered in this booklet? In general, therewould be no change required in the advice, but thepriorities assigned to nonstructural as well as structuralupgrading projects would drastically increase, and theamount of time to implement these projects might bevery limited. Expedient and temporary measures, such asplacing the contents of shelving on the floor, or tapingwindows to prevent the fall of fragments, or movingcontents to another location, might be feasible in thecontext of a short term prediction. If the prediction issomewhat vague as to time, such as a prediction of anearthquake "sometime next month", and if evacuationwould not be feasible in light of its costs and the costsof shutdowns, continued use of buildings and theirnonstructural portions will probably be the rule.

Nonstructural countermeasures such as thoseoutlined here will probably appear the most promising inthe context of an earthquake prediction. In the case ofstructures, temporary shoritqc of bracing may be feasible,such as installing guy cables (like the cables which bracetall antennas), erecting plywood sidewalk canopies as usedon urban construction projects to protect passersby fromfalling objects, or adding timber or steel shoring posts ar1bracing diagonals in between floor levels.

After a prediction, a "run on the market" may welloccur as far as structural engineers, contractors, andspecialized construction materials are concerned, andtime will be very limited. The best advice is to act rowin an orderly and convenient way on the basis of thegeneral prediction that most of California's urbanizedareas will be at least significantly shakea everygeneration or so rather than to wait until a specificshort-term prediction may occur.

34

INTENSITY

(see Figure 4 for definition)

ZONE(see Figure 5for location)

LIGHT MODERATE SEVERE

UBC

ZONE4

60% 35% 5%

UBC

ZONE3

40% 20% 1%

Figure 6

Approximate Chance of Experiencing Intertsity During 25 Year Period

14 '35

2. Typical Conditions Found In Office,Retail, and Government Buildings

High Rise Office BuildingsIn addition to the characteristics of the specific

nonstructural systems found in any given office building,there are four seismic factors which apply to tall highrise office towers: (1) Taller buildings can amplify themotion of the ground, and in their upper portions theshaking can be more intense than at the ground or in astiffer, shorter building; (2) They are more sensitive todistant earthquakes; (3) Tall buildings can contain severalthousand occupants rather than only a few dozen orhundred; (4) Most of the building will be unusable withoutelevator service. It is really the stiffness of thebuilding, which is dependent upon its precise materials,presence of structural walls in addition to frames,configuration, and other factors, rather than just itsoverall height, which is pertinent, but here we willgeneralize to assume that all tall buildings are flexible.

(1) The top floors of a high rise building (say 8-10stories or taller) will experience stronger shaking than the

3 6 13

lower floors or ground level. For example, according toone rec3nt seismic design guideline (Ref. 6), the top floorof a building can be assumed to shake twice as vigorouslyas the base for purposes of designing nonstructuralanchorages, with intermediate stories shaking proportion-ately: Three-fourths of the way up the height of thebuilding, such as at the 15th floor of a 20 story building,the shaking would be one and three fourths as great as atthe ground level, according to this approximate rule.

(2) Tall buildings have a natural tendency to respondto vibrations with a slow-paced back and forth swaying:The tall building is like the palm tree which swings backand forth every few seconds while the nearby short andstiff shrub flutters rapidly in the same breeze. Theground motion at a site which is distant from anearthquake is generally of this slow-paced, lowerfrequency variety while the more rapid-paced vibrationsoccur nearer the fault which released the earthquake. Inthe 1952 Kern County earthquakes, it was generally only

the tall buildings in downtown Los Angeles whichresponded significantly to the slow rocking motiongenerated by the earthquakes which were 100 miles away,(Ref. 7). This heightened sensitivity to distantearthquakes means that tall office towers will in effect"feel" more earthquakes than shorter buildings that donot tune in to this rolling motion. For nearbyearthquakes, all buildings will be affected to somesignificant degree. Hence, tall buildings are at greaterrisk as far as their nonstructural portions are concerned.The structural system holding up a tall building inCalifornia is generally subjected to very thoroughengineering !to ensure its adequacy in earthquakes, butmost nonstructural items were not included as part of theengineer's responsasility in the design of the building.

(3) The large number of occupants in the tallbuilding also differentiates it from other buildings from aseismic point of view. Nonstructural damage, forexample, disruption of water and electrical service toareas such as rest rooms, food service facilities, and aleconditioning mechanical rooms, are easier to cope with ifa smaller number of people are involved. In a tallbuilding, if people must temporarily stay in the buildingbecause of internal outages (lack of elevator service) andexternal outages (cordoned off areas, blocked or jammedstreets and freeways, lack of public transit), the problemswill be severe.

(4) The last factor which sets the tall building apartis its extreme dependence on elevators. Only the lowestfew floors, or a small percentage of the total space,would be usuable without elevator service.

Typical Nonstructural Items The nonstructuralcomponents listed in Figure 7 are the items mostcommonly found in a typical high rise office building.Priority ratings are suggested, though tnese can only be

16

38

offered as an approximate guide since the functionsconsidered essential, or the items of most property value,can vary from one building to the next, as can the preciseconstruction characteristics. Real buildings are rarelytypical in regard to every aspect of their construction andespecially with regard to the details of their use. Photosof representative nonstructural items are shown in Figure8.

Typical Building Layout - Figure 9 illustrates arepresentative layout for a high rise office building.There are several nonstructural characteristics to note.Elevators are usually grouped together, and oftencentrally. While retroactive regulations in effect inCalifornia since 1975 have imposed more stringentearthquake-resistant construction standards on elevators,the elevators will still probably not be operableimmediately after an earthquake. Seismic switches aredesigned to be triggered by the earthquake and they willcause the cars to move to the nearest floor, open thedoors, and then shut them off. An example in Chapter 1was given of severe damage suffered by an elevatorsystem because it was operated with misaligned cablesafter an earthquake before being checked. In the 1971San Fernando earthquake, almost 500 elevators weredamaged in such as way as to pose a threat to caboccupants though few people were using them ai 6 a.m.when the earthquake occurred. For these reasons, signsshould be posted that inform occupants not to use theelevators in case of fire or earthquake. See Figure 10.

The stairways, due to fire regulations, are separatedrather than grouped, and there will be a minimum of two.Even if there is damage to all elevators and one stairway,there will be at least one other means of exiting thebuilding. In many mult!-story buildings, the stairwelldoors are locked from the inside for security reasonsexcept for the bottom level where people are supposed to

39

High Priority For Seismic Evaluation

o Computerso Heavy ceiling-located objects: light fixtures, ducts, diffusers, and pipeso Exterior signso Exterior pre-cast concrete claddingo Emergency power generatoro Elevatorso Valuable and fragile artwork (sculpture)o Water heaters; any natural gas pipingo Mechanical room equipmento Tall file cabinetso Tall storage racks or shelvingo Battery-powered emergency lightso Fire extinguishers and cabinets, fire sprinklers0 Large electrical equipment, transformers

Lesser Priority For Seismic Evaluation

o Miscellaneous furnishings less than 4 or 5 feet off the flooro Furnitureo Desk top office equipmento Partitionso File cabinets, short or 2-drawero Lightweight ceilings

Figure 7Typical High Rise Office Building

Nonstructural Items

17 4

a. Computer on raised floor

.---

41.4--

31% PIM

AGOl).5T le-461-711-M5

b. Service space above suspendeC

c. Open plan office area d. Fire sprinkler control valves

Figure 8

Typical Scenes of Nonstructural Items in an Office Building

42 19

43

.

- -.

,

,' '7' . i I f

i1. '',,14 .)1114041,

*. . ....0 r'' _ f,, ...e ,. ^

.....r__, ..1, os

A.14511i?'; ' ) iji_......-

Figure le

Appropriate Earthquake Sign by Elevator

21)

4 4

exit. In the case of damage to a stairway at one level ofa building, if the doors at this level are quickly unlocked,it will allow for a cross-over to another stairway. Theexterior walls are often largely composed of glass, andthis is a potential falling object hazard inside andespecially outside the building: Re-grouping areas foroccupants after they have evacuated the building shouldnot be located within about 50 feet of overhead windows.

The structural system's story-by-story layering ofthe building is often matched in an organizational sense,for emergency purposes. Often there is a floor wardenor floor manager for each floor in charge of directingemergency procedures in the case of bomb threats orfires, and this same system can be adapted for use inearthquakes. Planning for fires is especially relevantsince in this case also, the elevators are to be avoided.

Mechanical rooms wliere the heating-ventilating-airconditioning equipment is located are often found at top,mid-height, and bottom of tall buildings. Some watertanks are located at the top because this providesconstant water pressure down to each upper floorwithout having to constantly pump Nater at high pressureup to each floor. Air conditioning equipment cannot belocated all at one level, such as the basement, becausethe distance to upper floors and thus the length and sizeof air duets required, would be excessive. This meansthat after an earthquake, there will be several potentialplaces for mechanical equipment damage that should bequickly checked.

Retail StoreUnlike the tall office building, the retail store, such

as the supermarket, will typically be located in a onestory building or on the ground floor of a low-risebuilding, or occasionally, as in a large department store,comprise a two or three story building. This simplifies or

45 21

reduces many of the nonstructural problems.

From an operational and emergency planningstandpoint, however, retail stores have a,signifieantproblem: Most of the occupants at a given intuit maybe members of the public, rather than employees, andthese randomly assembled members of the public willhave received no training on what to do in case ofearthquake nor have a responsibility toward the store.Providing clear directions to these occupants by the staffis especially important, therefore. With any significantdamage, the best course is probably to begin to helpoccupants exit the building, preferably without anyadditional sales transactions. (If the power is out, mostmodern cash registers will not operate in any event).After the public has exited, the store can be locked,spilled items can be cleaned up.

Typical Nomtructural Items - Figure 11 listsrepresentative retail store nonstructural items. Thesame qualifying statement about the generalizations aboutpriorities stated above applies here as well. Figure 12illustrates typical nonstructural items.

Typical Retail Store Layout - Figure 13 illustrates ageneric retail store layout. The earthquake-relevantfeatures to note are as follows.

The front of the store is where the entrances andexits are located, and these doors are co-located withlarge display windows. There is very little solid wall atthe front, but completely solid walls at the sides andperhaps a wall with only a few openings in it at the rearof the building on the alley. The front of this box is thus"soft" and may rack in an et thquake. Unfortunately,some of the more hazardous nonstructural features areoften located at the storefront also.

4 fl

High Priority for Seismic Evaluation

o Tall, heavy display racks or shelveso Tall, heavy storage room racks or shelveso Large storefront windowso Especially valuable and fragile merchandiseo Emergency power generator (but not usually present)o Heavy overhead objects: light fixtures, large pipes, hanging space heaterso Cash register stands

Lesser Priority for Seismic Evaluation

o Lightweight ceilingso Lightweight merchandise, or heavy objects less than 4 or 5 feet off the groundo Ordinary office equipment, small file cabinets

Figure 11Typical Retail Store Nonstructural Items

4 7

22

-

,

q"-,

,,

k444,,

a. Water heater b. Contents restrained by wire (may not be feasible)

Ito

it&

Iiw

+V*."

c. Roll-up garage door d. Tall storage room rack

4 8

Figure 12

Typical Scenes of Nonstructsral Item in a Retail Store

23 4 ;)

50

Figure 13

Typical Retail Store Layout

24

Large storefront windows often break at relativelymoderate intensities of shaking. Only in newer storeswill some windows that are immediately next to doors orextend dowa aost to the ground, be tempered glass(which breaks into Kizer Zed rather than sharp fragments).In older masonry buildings, there will probably bebrickwork supported over the storefront portion of thebuilding that is damage prone at just a moderate level ofshaidng. Parapets around the roof on older masonrybuildings are especially easily dislociged by earthquakes.Signs may occasionally break off and fall in earthquakesalso. For these reasons, the most hazardous location isprobably the sidewalk, where glass, bricks and/or stucco,signs, or a combination of these kinds of debris may fall.Training employees not to run out of the building and toinstead just take cover under a table, by a cheek-outstand, etc., is probably the best emergency planningmeans of dealing with these hazards, while retrofitconstruction techniques can help prevent the damagefrom occurring in the first place.

The majority of the floor space is typically openplan or subdivided with only display eases and occasionaldisplay partitions. Cash registers in department storesare located throughout the area used for merchandisedisplay, while in supermarkets and most small stores theyare located at the front.

At the rear of the store is the area used byemployees for inventory storage and stocking, clerical andmanagerial activities in an office or offices, rest rooms,and a mechanical room for air conditioning and otherequipment. Supermarkets will have refrigeration equip-ment for food cooling, while small retail stores will haveonly a small heater or heater-air conditioner and a smallwater heatee. Most retail stores do not have anemergency power generator.

5225

Truck deliveries will probably occur at the rear ofthe store, relying on a loading dock and roll-up overheaddoor for access of goods into the building. These typesof doors have jammed in past earthquakes, though theycan usually be opened manually if several people workstrenuously on the problem. There should be pull chainsor other manual opening controls because the power maygo out. Goods are typically stored in a rear room on tallracks.

Low-rise Government Services BuildingIn this type of building most of the employees are

engaged in office operations similar to those in acommercial office building, although record storage maybe a major function in centralized areas, and moremembers of the public may be in the building at a givenmoment. Record storage generally implies tall shelvingor cabinetry. Large computer areas may be found, oftenwith raised computer floors.

Special conditions and unusually essential functionsare found in fire, police, and emergency operationsfacilities if located in a multi-purpose local governmentbuilding. This topic is largely outside the scope of thisbooklet, except to note that the earthquake vulnerabilityof nonstructural items eseential for post-earthquakeoperations, such as teletypes, radios, computers, or storedmedical supplies, should be taken even more seriously inthese kinds of departments.

Typical Nonstructural Items - Figure 14 provides alist of these similarly as for the other two types ofbuildings discussed earlier and photographic examples areshown in Figure 15.

Typical Government Building Layout - Figure 16illustrates the layout of a representative local govern-

03

High Priority for Seismic Evaluation

o Heavy overhead objects: pipes, light fixtures, air diffuserso Speakers in hearing-meeting roomso Emergency power generator, battery-powered lightso Tall, heavy storage rackso Emergency supply inventory (water, medicine, food, etc.)

Lesser Priority for Seismic Evaluation

o Lightweight ceilingso Partitionso Ordinary office equipment

Figure 14Typical Government Building

Nonstructural Items

5 4

v..

a. Battery-powered emergency lights

alk

4

b. Computer telecommunications

addistidadymm'

mama*

Isietrammia:

c. Executive office d. Storage room

Figure 15

Typical Scenes of Nonstructural Items In a Government Building

27 56

r;

LAse.,e PUBLIC- MEeflP RCVM

Figure 16

11`ypieal Low-rise Government Building Layout

2858

ment services building. It may be multistory, but willprobably only be a few stories in height rather than 10,20, or 30 stories tall as for commercial office buildings.Tall government buildings will share many of thecharacteristics of the tall office towers discussed at thebeginning of this chapter. There may be a large plaza,park, parking lot, or other open area around the building,which provides an ideal place for re-grouping occupants ifthere is a building evacuation. The large public assemblyrooms are not usually found in a commercial office orretail building.

Meeting and hearing rooms or law courtrooms maybe found in multi-purpose government buildings, and theselarge assembly rooms differentiate this type of buildingfrom the typical commercial office building. Since therewill almost always be a judge, commission chair, manager,or other person of leadership in charge of largegatherings, these individuals should be instructed in howto respond should an earthquake occur in a room filledwith people. The best advice is to direct people to kneeldown between the seats right where they are: Thisprovides the best protection from the occasional fallingpiece of ceiling, and it helps prevent a panicky run forthe exits which could injure people by pushing and falling.

5 D

29

3. Individual Nonstructural Items:Vulnerability and Countermeasures

How will a specific nonstructural item perform in anearthquake? How do you know what your potentialproblems are? In this chapter, typical nonstructuralitems are described in terms of their earthquakedamageability relative to different intensities of shaking.Enough categories of nonstructural portions of buildingshave been provided to allow for an effective initialreview of most office, retail, and government buildings.

These damage estimates are derived from analysesusing COUNTERQUAKE, a computer program developedby Scientific Service, Inc. under a National ScienceFoundation grant. COUNTERQUAKE individually ana-lyzes nonstructural components within different types pfbuildings and on different sites. Simplifying assumptiohihave been made here to apply the method to typicalrather than specific actual cases, and in any event,estimates of future earthquake damage to either thestructural or nonstructural portions of a building are onlyjust that -- estimates -- regardless of the method used.

60

In most cases, the approximations provided here areadequate for purposes of initially determiningvulnerabilities. In some cases, more detailed analysesthan provided in this general purpose booklet should beobtained from a consultant or in-house engineer if thepotential risks are great.

The high-moderate-low statements of life safetyand outage risks are self-explanatory. The percentagesof replacement cost which state the property losses canbe multiplied by the cost of replacing a given category ofitems to produce an estimated loss figure.

In the charts in this chapter, the most promisingcountermeasures for protecting each item fromearthquake damage are provided. In some cases theseanchorage, restraint, or other retrofit measures can beapplied as shown. In other cases, the method mightrequire adaptation to a particular case, or a designprofessional's assistance would be required to developparticular designs.

The cost estimates can only be considered roughguides, since it is not possible to account for all of thespecific differences in construction conditions found inbuildings nor to allow for the variation in cost betweendifferent contractors during changing construction marketconditions or between in-house labor versus outsidecontractor costs. The costs do not include anyengineering or architecture services that may be required.

The effects estimated for each component areessentially only inertial effects as discussed in Chapter 1,except where noted. The imposed distortion problem isalso significant, but it requires a knowledge of thedetailed characteristics of each building to intelligentlyestimate whether problems are present or not. Somebuildings will sway one inch, others two inches, under thesame earthquake shaking and loading, for example, andthe mountings of some windows can tolerate considerableracking of the surrounding frame while others are muchmore locked-in. In general, there are few practicalmeans of retrofitting built-in nanstructuml portions ofbuildings, such as windows or partitions, to protect themfrom cracking when the building sways and distorts, whilethere are usually many feasible wa3,.,.7 of protectingfreestanding objects. For new construct'mn, the protilemof nonstructural damage caused by ttstortiGn of thestructure should be given thorough attmtion by architectand engineer, however, because in the design stage thereis great potential for dealing with this problem.

Intensities Will your building experience the light,moderate, or severe intensity of shaking listed in thesecharts? As suggested in Chapter 1, for most ofCalifornia, the severe category of intensity ts a %slidassumption, and if any of the effects associated with thislevel of shaking would be disastrous, further attention is

C) 4 31

warranted. If located in California's Central Valley orother next-to-highest seismic zone areas, the moderateintensity is appropriate, though it is possible to think ofexamples which do not follow this rule: A very essentialcomputer installation, for example, (or essential types ofbuildings like hospitals and r,e stations) would bedesigned to stricter criteria even if not located in thehighest seismic zone.

Flexible buildings sway more, and hence impose agreater change of shape or distortion on partitions andother rigid built-in nonstructural elements. They canalso experience more violent whiplash motions, and sothey are more damage prone from our nonstructural pointof view. The following charts have been prepared withtypical low-rise, bearing wall (shear wall) buildings inmind, and these structures are relatively stiff. If thesestiff buildings move as much as a frame structure, it isonly at the point of major structural damage where theirwalls or floors would be extensively cracked.

For the upper stories of buildings about eight to tenstories or taller, for lower frame buildings without anystructural walls, and for the open-faced storefrontfacades of buildings in which solid structural walls areonly located elsewhere, the light-moderate-severeintensity levels shown in the charts should be increasedalmost one notch: A light intensity of ground motion canbe assumed to cause a moderate intensity up in theflexible building, or a moderate ground intensity can beassumed to be increased to severe. If a flexible buildingis located where severe intensity is already presumed tobe the future intensity, there is a greater chance that thecorresponding damage shown in the chart will occur orwill occur to more components.

63

The photographs illustrating actual instances ofdamage to each type of nonstructural item provide agraphic explanation of the damage that could occur.These photos, in addition to illustrating potential prob-lems, also serve to prove that these problems haveactually occurred and can appear in the future after otherearthquakes in urban areas.

Chapter 4 provides guidance on how to tabulate anduse the information contained in the charts of thischapter.

6432

LARGE COMPUTERSYM 413MIMMMIN1111.1

AND OFFICE MACHINESDAMAGE EXAMPLE PROTECTIVE COUNTERMEASURE

,........

,

A

-,,--'

-

, ,

ilL 07"I

..eitve :

..._. -..._._,___-_eft,--1 m iiI . w _ .-4

APVACATED PON CAIIINNfirt041110:11 -119 1.14.4111W1-44T111~11-1% COMPUTIst MOM141,TION PREPellINCIRIP IHOINIAIVIC)gay mizi ecmpimis cAsimerrSAM 114SWAX/H PASEID PRA:to;DIRraar ATTA4.0ouvir 4110404101141141- ir, sarseir, PtctstTWCHIMP CABLESfErAdINEWPaNiat iakitARSEA

PLAMMIEWIr az 44,16U56

12, PPOWINT- CAVMPVTIMUmaw Frocm me-uwar

INTV H61456:...r. L. __0mil Iim . _ - ,-14110qt .. .. )11P.- -1. 14111100,110._

....

AX 'DOWN/ilives-r

--"MILIPAIII

IP 01w -- ,SRES *PRISM:, MAWR

earthquake: 1978 Sendai, Japancredit: Anshel Schiff

iaaremusat..Floor alone: $2-S/per sq. ft. Cabinet

APPROXIMATE COST: restraint cost varies.

EXISTING VULNERABILITY UPGRADED VULNERABILITYSHAKINGINTENSITY EFFECTS + 711%.1

MOWSHAKINGINTENSITY EFFECTS , 111111

111

LIGHTjiggling of tall equipment;misalignment low 0-10% low LIGHT no damage low 0% low

.......

MODERATE

ar.....o.....ammt

occasional shifting ofequipment; some chance ofdamage

10-30%

high MODERATE

.....---.....

no damage low 0% low

ro...........

modSEVERE

overturningequipment

of most tallmod 30-

100%high

0

SEVEREequipment intact; chanceof some 4e due toslight movemeamagnt a-visconnections

low 0 10%

di......4.ill LIFE SAFETY HAZARD % OF REPLACEMENT VALUE DAMAGEDR.1-.1 vow.MIMIEILISII POSTEARTHQUAKE OUTAGEDrill

83

ELECTRICAL EQUIPMENTDAMAGE EXAMPLE II PROTECTIVE COUNTERMEASURE

LI

OAT. .4. Je1.--1C-Lia. .111whd

44

111166.

earthquake: 1971 San Fernandocredit: John F. Meehan

$50-100 each "refrigeratorsized*APPROXIMATE COST: piece of equipment

EXISTING VULNERABILITY UPGRADED VULNERABILITYSHAKINGINTENSITY

EFFECTSbk1MAIIn

SHAKINGINTENSITY

EFFECTSAIL

LIGHT no damage low 0-5% low LIGHT no damage low 0% low

MODERATE swaying of tall equipment mod 5-20% high MODERATE no damage low 0% low

SEVEREoverturning of tallequipment

mod 2080%

high SEVEREno damage to anchoredequipment; some damageto distribution system

,...m.............m.

low 0-10% low

.404

# LIFE SArETY HAZARD % OF REPLACEMENT VALUE DAMAGED POSTEARTHQUAKE OUTAGE

n 34 CR

MISCELLANEOUS OFFICE FURNISHINGSDAMAGE EXAMPLE PROTECTIVE COUNTERMEASURE

,

_

,..

4, ,.,t

.

J.

dam sefoxasFeCHART ar

TALL pusCAEINETS

i

-41

,,;A

, ,A 44,

I.p.....1, RIMEL, FtAar akGrrHeaft. Hero..ey/liksiiowscr

LAMB FINTO-1155,44 Ob 0 SCP. IN.) orMIATINC) VELCRO ORan-HER BRAND 14CIOICANC, Wee FASTISNER61.-IMC::), Wr1"1-1APPROPRI/411EAPHESIA TO eaTbMOF RX" ANP -wp cePILO 444131ker (4ANhog CAIESINEST If=LATIER FEEL-OC)OFF* )

GHAIIa5, °MK$VERY gageor

421/4reW5 ONOANGI-1012861,,

AND TARiLES HAVE. ONUraverenntNeto IN SpitTHWAlcA35;GOSOILVORK. '64-10U12) kW

ROVVIEVE3le .

earthquake: 1979 Santa Barbaracredit: Larry Parsons/Health and Safety, UCSB APPROXIMATE COST: $1.50 materials plus 15 minutes labor

EXISTING VULNERABILITY UPGRADED VULNERABILITYSHAKINGINTENSITY EFFECTS ,

mmllillilli SHAKING

INTENSITY EFFECTS I31 $I

LIGHT no damage low 0-5% low LIGHT no damage low 0% low

MODERATE no damage low 5 20% low MODERATE no damage low 0% low

tipover or shifting of aSEVERE few top-heavy and narrow

itemsmod 20-

50%mod SEVERE

occasional tipover ofsmall items; furnitureslides up to a fewinches

low 0-10% low

4111111111111111111111

41 LIFE SAFETY HAZARD $ % OF REPLACEMENT VALUE DAMAGED POSTEARTHQUAKE OUTAGE........._md...___

35

FRAGILE ARTWORKDAMAGE EXAMPLE PROTECTIVE COUNTERMEASURE

1 , 101.4.446

WE/

,, .

''' k

. 7 ,

.'IkAV

' ll

.

,.

4 '

.q.,i:

0.13fIlit-

60VY LINE*,

stm,FrRI-N6 Peposra_61-pros aceMAT BS AtsiGHOROP CLOSEFITT1N,

/sr Toe OR451PIES

earthquake: 1906 San Franciscocopyright: Stanford University Archives

varies; generally less than $100 perAPPROXIMATE COST: item

EXISTING VULNERABILITY UPGRADED VULNERABILITYSHAKINGINTENSITY

EFFECTSSHAKINGINTENSITY

EFFECTS

N

liiLIGHT

damage only to occasionaltall object low 0-20% low LIGHT no damage low 0% low

MODERATE

items which can roll ortipover damaged; casesand stands generallystable unless 1.5 to 2times taller than wide

low 2050%

low MODERME some misalignment butsmall chance of damage

low 0-5% low

SEVEREentire cases or stands maytipover mod 50

100%mod SEVERE

some chance of damagesince complete restraintmay be infeasible

low 0-10%

_.....

low

WIN

411 LIFE SAFETY HAZARD % OF REPLACEMENT VALUE DAMAGED&kmNemIIIII.IIIII

.

POSTEARTHQUAKE OUTAGE

71 36 72

TALL FILE CABINETSDAMAGE EXAMPLE PROTECTIVE COUNTERMEASURE

. ,,,

,. l s

, c

X: ,u ' .1t',.'r 'N

.

. .

c ---

44

, .

..

_

/

111911

lel101azgiewsANcvextCe$124.1.4

"VPnaFORMSHAM,-Tr,WALL-Lear

CONNEZTIONS.UNITS

mom

1117-It

0Fuze

MAY

L--'. ,.,.

L,+'''

70615THE*17,

4

J

10

snots.be WNW,-rieroual4404144or

EATGA i NoDRAWaR5

IHARpipit To ArgrZA:WAIIIWIMitovemarsir .r

earthquake: 1979 Imperial Valley, Californiacredit: BSD, Inc. $5 per pair of cabinets; latching

APPROXIMATE COST: models standard

EXISTING VULNERABILITY UPGRADED VULNERABILITYSHAKINGINTENSITY EFFECTS

.,i!, SHAKING

INTENSITY EFFECTS

LIGHT no damage low 0-5% low LIGHT no damage low 0% low

MODERATEoccasional tipover ifdrawers unlatched and iftop heavy

mod 5-20% mod MODERATE no damage low 0% low

SEVERE tipover of most tallcabinets

almwmalmow

mod 2050%

high SEVEREdamage limited to spillageof occasional individualunlatched drawer

low 0-10% low

# LIFE SAFETY HAZARD % OF REPLACEMENT VALUE DAMAGED114.11461611111MIMI POSTEARTHQUAKE OUTAGEMIMI

7.3 37

DESK TOP COMPUTERS AND OFFICE EQUIPMENTDAMAGE EXAMPLE PROTECTIVE COUNTERMEASURE

DeSils ANDAuviOST"OVER-TURNIN 4.E.yerRE

-rAeLz3SNEWER.

EA/EN

1°1111

,.....

."10

RUMS11-44N

VULNFRAftLE-

TALLERwicr soMENAJAT

0111''..... ...

1....Sl. .......-.

\AI

/1 //.A%

1-7

s LAMA REMOVAL, OMAY MAieflATCMOK

F

----@- ,.\\\N

V.01~45.

i.113-4. 4MATegAL.IN. parci4op *0 moL.pirs.VELe-Ro Hecitc ATMe..1-1 Ge,RNER., ef,R5IMILAR RIR. CPTHEIZegaNc:1 oF FAE42_fire-NEle

V-Ae, API---SIvs. TYFY-

La-2P t44Tr=RIALFietrckie oFsr/WC:4RPN./m.4w wavENMaGN Levi:, CoRSIMILAR R:42e7THER eRaND5),1Wica "-Hs. ,547e.

paremssl10 THAT L.---;-...--)ALe,NMEWr ..p, ..,:....***P.5 Nair RE4vIREC,

$1.50 per item material plus 15APPROXIMATE COST: minutes labor

UPGRADED VULNERABILITYEXISTING VULNERABILITYSHAKINGINTENSITY

EFFECTSSHAKINGINTENSITY

EFFECTSLWOil

LIGHT no damage low 0-10% lov LIGHT no damage low 0% low

MODERATE shifting of equipment low 1020%

mod MODERATE no damage low 0% low

SEVEREsome equipment falls tofloor mod 20

80%high SEVERE

..1,-......-..

downtime more likely to bedue to electrical outageor building damage thanequipment d-,-,age

low 0-10% low

# LIFE SAFETY HAZARD % OF REPLACEMENT VALUE DAMAGED

-ir"41all POSTEARTHQUAKE OUTAGEsou

38

EMERGENCY POWER GENERATORSDAMAGE EXAMPLE PROTECTIVE COUNTERMEASURE

CiII 0 la

00 C;;) 0' Go

GI

121

- $

I/ 10.".°.VTAN41:, eiGI-TEL) /..410s plasie,"TV Fl....

I

rOR GGNERATOR. ANGHORPOS, 'See. HeATINC-VIONITILATItslemAir ONPTTIONINC. McPUIPMMIT C.earthquake: 1971 San Fernando $10 per rack for strappingQredlt: John F. Meehan APPROXIMATE COST: $50 for bolting

EXISTING VULNERABILITY UPGRADED VULNERABILITYSHAKING ri SHAKING IIINTENSITY EFFECTS + $ INTENSITY EFFECTS + $

slight chance of pipingLIriHT connection break low 0-5% mod LIGHT no damage low 0% low

MODERATE slight shifting of equipment; batteries slide low 5-20% high MODERATE no damage low 0% low

SEVERE lurching of generator offsupports; batteries fall mod 20 high SEVERE

damage to rest of electrical system more likely low 0-5% low50% than generator damage

orry.III LIFE SAFETY HAZARD % OF REPLACEMENT VALUE DAMAGED UV POSTEARTHQUAKE OUTAGE...._

39 '03

FREESTANDING MOVABLE PARTITIONS_____DAMAGE EXAMPLE PROTECTIVE COUNTERMEASURE

PIRES9TAA1PiNd

1----4,

PARTITIONS

..,..

17%/1 ,s

1/ ./..;/

/I 0.1, "t ,..

MAY -reovea--10.1R LEW:3TH

-

Zidi-Z146LAYOVT

LO461 crresLwrutsweAr.so gums, O

ARIIIAEUE. FtCAOR.AT Tr

--N.

MORE

s-,

.

PERPENIPICULAR TO IF=

NOT ATT161-1E0 TO r.:E.S141 ANC4-10RE0TO PLeAVIZ

(OR. MOM) IPOW 041.Z.

none for zig-zag layoutAPPROXIMATE COST: $10-20 per panel for bolting

EXISTING VULNERABILITY...

UPGRADED VULNEiriABILITYSHAKINGINTENSITY

EFFECTS 4.f.44,

low 0-5%

aill111111IIIIIIIII1

1173

II U

SHAKINGINTENSITY

LIGHT

EFFECTS,

Pt"61111

011

LIGHT no damage low no damage low 0% low

MODERATE. occasional tipover oftaller partitions withoutnearby restraint

low 5-10% low MODERATE no damage low 0% low

SEVERE tipover of most parti-tions

mod 10-20%

low SEVEREslight chance ot occa-sional panel tipover

-......,,...low 0-5% low

__--411 LIFE SAFETY HAZARD % r" REPLACEMENT VALUE DAMAGED

primiati POST EARTHQUAKE OUTAGE

40 60

BUILT-IN PARTITIONS______ _DAMAGE EXAMPLE PROTECTIVE COUNTERMEASURE----__

. ..0,. b ,,../

IWITIGSP MASONRYMONS Aga

-PieeNst )60VOR UNDWR

laUlt.N MANX WOULP WAVESow Mrrgui FkonaGrkpri,

4 IHM 4-tArapinlea 114- WAY.

,

MOT-AL ORWOOD 57VCS

FARTITIION TEE...12:*7o

LATNRAL4-Yi PO4.1046e er.A.LANi Rsquiptiv

1:22R AZGIA:cle-1504XTION. PIROPAT-INA MVO,* OPGHOCKIRC> Met FIRE4SEPARATION W.61.14,el- HOUR" Wial6, are)

fogrrneN Focep /cr. 1566E11-11t, 1 .40 . - .

APPrrION OF mip44ektio.rr etzeKiNai PRA/11%0g'.RAEXIBILITY IN 1.6YATION OF OVIPMENT ANCRICA105.

earthquake: 1972 Nicaraguacredit: John F. Meehan APPROXIMATE COST: varies according to design

EXISTING VULNERABILITY UPGRADED VULNERABILITYSHAKINGINTENSITY EFFECTS

PEN,11111111 SHAKING

INTENSITY EFFECTS___LIMlow 0% low

11111111

LIGHT no damage low 0-596 low LIGHT no damage

MODERATE occasional cracking kw 5 20% low MODERATE

----no damage low 0-5% low

SEVERE

.......................k

extensive cracking;occasional falling overif structure is severelydamaged

low 20- mod100%

SEVEREonly occasional crackingunless building isseverely damaged

low 5 20% low

............................NI I41 LIFE SAFETY HAZARD % OF REPLACEMENT VALUE DAMAGED gill POST-EARTHQUAKE OUTAGEkegs..

1 81 41

_

WINDOWSDAMAGE EXAMPLE PROTECTIVE COUNTERMEASURE

---Pl--,

vv It4P0 ® IF TINTW API-fro5Illa 5A-Ate FILM0- Vire5IRAINX 112 Renze. wair ANC) Hagr,

rr WILL A1.90 Hial...P HOLP VISOTHERFRASMEN135 C4IF Atte PANEge) MAT CRACK IN

, FORTHCIVAlea.4

.el Uela OF LAMINA-Tor? a.L.695 FCR

, 41-01WORot4P5 IstaBtX.05 eE0MIC. AS vvet.4.-'Tt As. surast.ARr-v,ANDAwsrvt RISle. .

.CI IN NEW corskarrizucrioN, STIFiv-ER

,OUR-OIN643 W1fl4 612MATER THAN dvTANCAICO

, larr=e GLE4SRANee'S (r(e comacresz... -NAN 1/411 ALL. RIPUNIV) PrzaIRA.ENLE.- .

ED SMALLER, 47FERAJBLE , AN' WCVDEN. FRAMED WINC:WW 1iPLE12ATM MORE.

COPT:, . ..

earthquake: 1971 San Fernandocredit: John F. Meehan

solar film: CI per sq. ft.,APPROXIMATE COST: including installation

EXISTING VULNERABILITY UPGRADED VULNERABILITYSHAKINGINTENSITY

EFFECTS $ S WINTEINGNSITY

EFFECTSMillIn

LIGHT no damage low 0-5% low LIGHT no damage low 0% low

MODERATE cracking of large windows mod 5-50% mod MODERATE no damage low 0% low

SEVERE

shattering of glass; piecesthrown both directions frompane; small windows andthose allowing formovement uncfamaged

high 50100%

high SEVEREcracking of large windowsif building severely damaged

low 0-20% mod

# LIFE SAFETY HAZARD % OF REPLACEMENT VALUE DAMAGED MP POSTEARTHQUAKE OUTAGEOM

42 Sel

SUSPENDED CEILINGSDAMAGE EXAMPLE PROTECTIVE COUNTERMEASURE

.,

14-

,,

, ,

>.

,

,

I 1

140. 12.. 6.666 r-140--- ACAXASTAIKSWIMP' \ I i CoMPINVOSIoN STRUTSI I 112 PROMNT"NOSISMIC.i I EBOUNGINO " "AO..I cesireAmw-e.\\

1 I I

w

GIZOS5 RUNNIER,-\'*

MAIN RUNNER

4

4-WAY PlAtiONAL. ORACIN64 Weir( 12 FrON MAIN RUNNER6, ANP WITHIN 4 FT OF WA14.4

earthquake: 1972 Nicaraguacredit: John F. Meehan APPROXIMATE COST: $20 per sq. ft.

EXISTING VULNERABILITY UPGRADED VULNERABILITYSHAKINGINTENSITY EFFECTS

A1111SHAKINGINTENSITY EFFECTS

_IIII IlaiiKOUM

LIGHT only occasional dislodgedtile low 0-5% low LIGHT no damage low 0% low

MODERATEfalling of some of cell-ing, especially at peri-meter and in large rooms

mod 5-20% mod MODERATE no damage low 0% low

SEVERE

falling of most or all ofceiling tiles, as well assome ceiling mountedequipment and ceilingframe

mod 20-100%

mod SEVERE

-6.

slight chance of occa-sional dislodged tile low 0-5% low

# LIFE SAFETY HAZARD $ % OF REPLACEMENT VALUE DAMAGED POSTEARTHQUAKE I" UTAGE

65 4 .1 SG

TALL SHELVINGDAMAGE EXAMPLE PROTECTIVE COUNTERMEASURE

No ORACANd oacRaGs -roPs erseL AN6L.E.

aft.A",.-- _--------

/1

% \

ArrAGHMENIrOPTION

TO WALL.

. f '

f '

'.

r,

,-1_T-7-----

illitfti

11111114-----41110AINV

POIZ CONTI5N1*warmth,. i NITS ;sism"HA2ARDOUSMATER IAL6. fl

,m.

40

. -,

faouT35

'STEEL ANtEmLE.PRILitri

1A

I

n 1

sHoLviNA . ii.! .1

..,

earthquake: 1972 Nicaraguacredit: John F. Meehan APPROXIMATE COST: $5 per lineal foot of shelving

EXISTING VULNERABILITY UPGRADED VULNERABILITYSHAKINGINTENSITY

EFFECTS

0-5%

UMIMIIlo

1.III

w

I

SHAKINGINTENSITY

EFFECTS

LIGHT none low 0% lowLIGHToccasional tall heavy shelftips from distant earthquake low

MODERATE overturning of some ofheaviest shelVing

mod 5-20% mod MODERATE some of unrestrained con-tents fall out

-_I ervi 0-10% low

SEVERE overturning of mostshelving

high 20-80%

high SEVERE

unlikely shelving willbe damaged; half ofunrestrained contentsfall out; almost none orestrained contents

low 10-50% mod

pi. # LIFE SAF'ETY HAZARD % OF REPL ACEMENT VALUE DAMAGED POST EARTHQUAKE OUTAGE

44 8

CONTAINERS OF HAZARDOUS MATERIALSDAMAGE EXAMPLE

PROTECTIVE COUNTERMEASURE,..---

l

,

.00-4

'4

.......'''...'

t. ~woolsdfriA9S

.......,...

.../Antics

CA6114E115

RATHER -THANcoNTAINSits.

Z. *16.1..p 1...4P.

5.514.,Asne. eacye...LE STRAPItirmsTRAINrs.

le0Pr "TAUel4Tor 'SWIM:ft.

SHELves AKIO-ro IMAL.1-1EXURSLY

67.Kacquasr OR mow144w:warm5 epedEcrsPLAOIP LOW AND IN6.W.LOSET, C.AOINErwiTH LA-TWIN& A2,12.

N

40P ""tc-,

.

,

0...

IT-6.

'ft

earthquake: 1971 San Fernandocredit: Scientific Service, Inc. 1. no cost; 2. $.50/lin. ft.; 3. $2.50

APPROXIMATE COST: ea.; 4. $.50/ft.; 5. $1/ft.; 6. no costEXISTING VULNERABILITY UPGRADED VULNERABILITY

SHAKINGINTENSITY EFFECTS 41

0-20%

.Pw...

Pimod

SHAKINGINTENSITY EFFECTS $

LIGHT slight chance of spill;due to slosh!ng mod LIGHT no damage low 0% low

MODERATE good chance of spill; somecontainers fall, pipes leak high 20

50%high MODERATE no damage low 0-5% low

SEVERElarge tanks leak ; falling containers, brokenpiping; damage also toadjacent items

high 50100%

high SEVEREsmall chance of spill indistribution system; nospill of containers

mod 5-10% mod

NINIIII LIFE SAFETY HAZARD $ % OF REPLACEMENT VALUE DAMAGED *Amumil POSTEARTHQUAKE iNt-TAGEWM"

4$

FIRE EXTINGUISHERSDAMAGE EXAMPLE PROTECTIVE COUNTERMEASURE

,r,

r ,

fir.' ,i is,,. ..

i 1 ,

.

4.44e

, r

itira. ,

,# e - 1 ik.

f . -4 .

"N %

4, :'.r,e." : ''''' " ,,'

! li I :4.; :1;:;':. :: 44. .; dig,..74,A. %

i: oc;.,k1,.; ....ivt.,.. , -

WIREDAl...645

*411

I'

i7c;191Z13E:

ifiti

LATC.4-1

LOGIGNeaLE

CV10.7PLA6DHL.16HT

(

LZIGATION

ONstir coisar)

R72

QUIG14.-RELEAge44741-4

"TO crituavReOP WAL.L.

a

earthquake: 1979 Santa Barbaracredit: Larry Parsons/Health and Safety, UCSB APPROXIMATE COST: $50-100 extra

EXISTING VULNERABILITY UPGRADED VULNERABILITY

SHAKINGINTENSITY

EFFECTS + $ PIM!1116111

1

SHAKINGINTENSITY

EFFECTS # $small chance extinguisherwill ip

low 0-10% low LIGHT no damage low 0% lowLIGHT

MODERPTEgood chance thatextinguisher will tip andfall out

low 1020%

mod MODERATE no damage low 0% low

SEVEREpoorly connected cabinetmay rip loose, as wellas falling of contents

low 2050%

high

1

SEVERE no damage low 0% low

11111 LIFE SAFETY HAZARD % OF REPLACEMENT VALUE DAMAGEDorviiilliallNMI POSTEARTHQUAKE OUTAGESIMI ri et

46

EXTERIOR ORNAMENTATION AND APPENDAGESDAMAGE EXAMPLE PROTECTIVE COUNTERMEASURE

70P snarr MINER11-1A14 C41.64N C..614Hatkvy PeevorsrOseiskue.KeNlawale, goovive.INal 0 0.

1 \, // 4/

,kt ,' 1.

,

,

,

.

.,.,

cANOPY leUsniezwita6 ,,0590EmnAt. ,/,/ / WON*//

CANTILUVNIC ..-WAG- LAP

e CAPAOILITY

GoNNISCTION'S 'PIRISMY 17, iergucrum I 1

---1-4P-1-0-

--a 1

earthquake. 1979 Imperial Valley, Californiacredit: Robert Reitherman/BSD, Inc. negligible cost above usual wind

APPROXIMATE COST: resistance requirements

EXISTING VULNERABILITY UPGRADED VULNERABILITYSHAKINGINTENSITY EFFECTS

RN,AIM SHAKING

INTENSITY EFFECTSNil411011Ns IIIIIMN III k

L IGHT slight chance of dis-lodgment mod 0-10% lo w LIGHT no damage lo w 0% low

MODERATE strong chance of dislodg-ment of fragments hi gh 10-

30%mod MODERATE no damage lo w low

SEVEREhigh chance that manyfragments or entireobjects will fall

hi gh 30-100%

hi gh SE V E R Eslight chance of dis-lodgment of occasionalfragment

low 0-10% low

wil-re41 LIFE SAFETY HAZARD % OF RE PL ACE MEN T VALUE DAMAGED eix POST EARTHQUAKE 0111.44E--....,:1 L.

47

0.1111101MMI

LIGHT FIXTURESDAMAGE EXAMPLE PROTECTIVE COUNTERMEASURE

Milli lei_

,

,

_

\ ..

I I

. I I

L....loHr I 1. 12 6A . WIRM5F 6CTURE ./AT EA4-1 cofetvelzag AT Lr

PlAto49NALLY

0 0 OVRPSITO. CORN ems:: : .7.7.

77i

(2.(Nar As ReLiAeLM t.I ,/ *I)A-TTAtH PlyruRE TO

wrn4 .ZREA/5 /72111

PoR PENPANT PIxTURRs,sAMTY WRe CAN E5E

0c,v, I-4.....'

0 RUN INsIGE. A9-rvm WITHWIRINO -Tr, coNNocrpocivr: TO 4-rizi.x..11uRE..

earthquake: 1971 San Fernandocredit: John F. Meehan APPROXIMATE COST: $30

EXISTING VULNERABILITY UPGRADED VULNERABILITYSHAKINGINTENSITY

EFFECTS 10 $. .

.11111111 SHAKING EFFECTS1123 $OMR INTENSITY

LIGHToccasional falling offixture diffusers low 0-5* low LIGHT no damage low low

MODERATE falling of some fixtures mod 5-20% mod MODERATE no damage low 0% low

SEVERE falling of many fixtures high 2080%

mod SEVEREslight chance of occasional falling of fixture diffusers

low 0-10% low

..................N

411 LIFE SAFETY HAZARD $ % OF REPLACEMENT VALUE DAMAGED memumel POST EARTHQUAKE OUTAGE

48

HEATINGVENTILATINGAIR CONDITIONING EQUIPMENTDAMAGE EXAMPLE PROTECTIVE COUNTERMEASURE

mow FAILvRIL OPSPASM, MOUNTINO.Nirneg. 414111b4U.sAverHquotociff.

1.

OMMINIKOIED

ROSTR4JNER5EX4.,OSS I ve

,

Ntoite. s.zrzore"--0.5PRit464

,

SINISMIC--PrZESVONTMOVOMIELNIT

, - n..F

.i

I r Al MIME' ---...!...tir...:, awsr ,f!".1,41 NI

.--

earthquake: 1980 Livermore, Californiacredit: William T. Holmes $100 per piece of small equipment

APPROXIMATE COST: ;200 per large piece of equipment

EXISTING VULNERABILITYmill,iilbeil

UPGRADED VULNERABILITYSHAKINGINTENSITY EFFECTS , SHAKING

INTENSITY EFFECTS 0 $5NI

dhohlliIN IMIII

LIGHT no damage low 0-5% low LIGHT no damage low 0% low

MODERATE shifting of equipment;connections may be broken low 5-20% mod MODERATE no damage low 0% low

SEVERE falling, lurching ofequipment off supports mod 20-

50%mod SEVERE any damage confined to

piping connections low 0-10% low

# LIFE SAFETY HAZARD % OF REPLACEMENT VALUE DAMAGED .1";:ptono POSTEARTHQUAKE OUTAGEUM

UP-449 0

HEATING-VENTILATING-AIR CONDITIONING DISTRIBUTIONDAMAGE EXAMPLE PROTECTIVE COUNTERMEASURE

it,

ViAki Vvr PN, t,,Ik.i= '

b) PlFruSER,, ,

', .... Ftv9ITI yew-,...Tv. ArrAcHEO

(UNLIKE)- 11-115 ONE)

TO 2 UCT

lk; CEILIKle= ,-49wts WHIG-4

P.A1*-T IN. 'TURN BE

.NPACJWP,-

-70

"4,ViL

4.,

earthquake: 1971 San Fernandocredits: a) J. Ayres b) William T. Holmes APPROXIMATE COST: ;10-20 per diffuser

EXISTING VULNERABILITY UPGRADED VULNERABILITYSHAKINGINTENSITY

EFFECTSEL_

$ SHAKINGINTENSITY

EFFECTS 15 $ 1lowL IGHT

occasional falling odiffuser low 0-5% low LIGHT no damage low 0%

MCARATEswinging of ducts; occasional falling of difusers, grills

mod 5-20% mod MODERATE no damage low 0% low

SEVEREfalling of ducts, mixingboxes, as well as diffusers

mod 2080%

high SEVEREchance of localizeddamage but no fallingof ducts

low 0-10% low

1111 LIFE SAFETY HAZARD % OF REPLACEMENT VALUE DAMAGEDwimp11111111*Millown POST EARTHpUAKE OUTAGE

50

WATER HEATERSDAMAGE EXAMPLE 7 PROTECTIVE COUNTERMEASURE

. 74 1* ..1

..

..,k -1

i

ovogruarimo.,:.WATER HOWER.

t

I I driCTVPS I 661400/1........IrillI I A

II

4WD!I purmssits

I croft wRAPpoo' I ake Ftst.wrvaxi 1

to I AMP PUL1410

(1Yet30 EAL...

-rAttr

'111 ttI FLEX" (SIMILAR- FOR.

t. .,N.

,,,

-.-itiAv ,

S

I

TANK) .....,-1----6A MEAL CTUDS)" LINE1,t

r'N1

I .;"

pewOtOWNSOMEMMOSINIACCE901BLE.--

gosua lb Iwo'FEET, our 1

THEY/4M STUD

1

1SC x JAr. .0 . tAte feErist

At iv axe.sea INTO

I comes-re

earthquake: 1971 San Fernandocredit: Scientific Service, Inc. APPROXIMATE COST: $50-100

EXISTING VULNERABILITY UPGRADED VULNERABILITYSHAKINGINTENSITY EFFECTS 41

mod

$0-10%

PI SHAKINGINTENSITY

LIGHT

EFFECTS

no damage

:,vlow

11

1+11h1

mod 0%

111111

L IGHT chance of leakage of pipinglow

MODERATE rocking but. no tipover oftank; piping dimage

high(fire)

1030%

high MODERATE no damage low 0% low

SEVERE

overturning of tank; notethat fire caused by heater damage: would causefuther losses

high(fire)

30100%

high SEVERE

damage to rest of wateror gaselectrical systemmore likely than heaterdamage

low 0-10% low

411, LIFE SiF_TILVAI4 OF REPLACEMENTwill

/JGE51

E LE VATOR SDAMAGE EXAMPLE PROTECTIVE COUNTERMEASURE

0

iiNit72:1"4..

.............m......e. mw....16.6,460

ce,VAITleNewiticr4 rbiheAX leiati5 P.4051'~666,g Ley.611 onlPVQ. PEPAtuAtsJT

RKTIWACrIVE. CALIFORNIA ADMINISTIZATIVE

I

I

COPE RULES HAVE. NOW RISSUL:TIBP IN4113ISMI C. svvrreH 120TROFITS ANDweigeceP eawc-INar. Ccer. 14102 peo.ouNE)

WILL sHor clOWN OM CAN

1

1

e-ovu-resewsuswr

I:

1,

,.

C...... elvleglSAILA, ' (Izereoprr"trg.0ev44, "IanPERN WEN r BLOVARMS IN

ist-mvaras 1

ee oPegiver, AT SLOW SPEW WM-IKey AMER EARTHQUPKO- "TR 16e3BIESswIrc-H .

HYDR4VLAC- eLEVA-27e5 MOW- 1.-IKEILY

i1,...,..---

1 1.. 1

cAuFlOr-A IAQ-lovi47 PEREGRAtt

....- LIM UFT.aReCEP(AGM ATRiesHT) .

-r-O IMMAIN FUNCTIONAL usuAt..or/MANG' coNu....Y IN LO(RISE BAJILDINC .

,... op- e...ei_e_ $2,500 per elevator, compared toAPPROXIMATE COST: early 70's designs

EXISTING VULNERABILITY UPGRADED VULNERABILITYSHAKINGINTENSITY

EFFECTS . 44, $ Pwl,AnilMEI

ISHAKINGINTENSITY

EFFECTS .

PINTWWII

IIliiilow LIGHT no damage low 0% low

slight chance of briefshutdown low 0-5%LIGHT

MODERATE most elevators temporarHy inoperative

mod 5-20% mod MODERATEelevators with seismicswitches may brieflyshut down

low 0-5% low

SEVERE

counterweight derailment,other severe damage; cabmay be damaged; elevatorroom damage

high 2080 %

high SEVERE

shutdown of elevators,but soon back in use;chance of damage tominority of elevators;backu. ower re.uired

low 5-10% mod

NVIll

411 LIFE SAFETY HAZARD % OF REPLACEMENT VALUE DAMAGED IS POSTEARTHQUAKE OUTAGE

n o 52 l d

PIPINGDAMAGE EXAMPLE PROTECTIVE COUNTERMEASURE

SMALL. DIAMerreR%/ELL; comA66.-WHORE.ANItsLEi ESPECIALLY

.

-

pettaxam'AMR.

FetoHrJOINis..

Ift...._

,

PipiasPia0NEL LOGCCTIGINS

PIPS'S, lsrrimbinacT oncrWITH 1)1ReADEC,

t

P1

% %5*---------

.._

_of:

INI PAIR'S

........ pips,Atsdl

SINCOND VW-1Na 'It4Ur;IleAGERS 54.40tX.47 Be.

earthquake: 1971 San Fernandocredit: a)John F. Meehan b) William T. Holmes APPROXIMATE COST: $50 per bracing pair

EXISTING VULNERABILITY UPGRADED VULNERABILITYSHAKINGINTENSITY E FFECTS SHAKI NG

INTENSITY EFFEC TS ,, $L IGHT

uccasional leak of weakjoint low 0-5% low L IGHT no damage low 0% low

MODERATE occasional breakage atweak joint mod

,

5-20% mod MODERATE no damage low 0% low

SEVERE

......................,

falling of piping; notethat secondary damageto leaks will also occur

high 20-100%

high SEVERE flight chance of leaks atweaker joints low 0-10% low

Ell LIFE SAFETY HAZARD $ % OF REPLACEMENT VALUE DAMAGEDirrIlMtmu POSTEARTHOUAKVIVTAGE

STAIRWAYS

..-44.14;..../.0;«..---1

DAMAGE EXAMPLE

_.s..-- --&-...A.......

_......A.......L.-:...-.4.,..4.. --4

...t _ ...,_.,1,,,1110.......... ..., a% A 't.

...- ....". ___

PROTECTIVE COUNTERMEASURE

C..4--AGE. OFWATER RawlIMWKENPIPE .

R.64.5netZ AhIPIWOONRYFRA4MENT4

ern-lEie.OF

CedeOfti S

TO PREVENT PAKAAr.-- -TO"THEY 4HOUL.P orn-toR. ee...

- ALL.OMP "TV St- IVE. Ar LANPIN643wrn-1 6,64.1e PLANK" DETAILS:1FVR. PLOXIE3La FRAN1 a SUILIDINda

---TREATIO7 STRUCTVRALLY ASS7F4712; ) I NrrEtestat.L. vvrm s..clom/WALusCGMMON FM. -4rr.:AR WALLED

70 AZEVENT DEBRIS FWM FALLIN6

D-N eizart. EENCLOSURM VVALL.4=x<46 LORTLY REINFRCEr,IV 61-1

STRON6 ATTAGH MEWS Fire

5TA I RS,

CielRaNial.-E

0 14420NAL...1

41NRAAY COR E 5 .

as) IrAm5;

(SUCH)

PIM-5,

.......- 4di,,,,....... ............4t,

"lift vessimeoloweloot ionsinso0106 316'`

WIMINIMINIEV:I

,

Allift11111111160*

me=amp. MEL

Li6H1'S, E. IN STAIRWel-l-

earthquake: 1971 San Fernandocredit: Lockheed APPROXIMATE COST: varies considerably

EXISTING VULNERABILITY UPGRADED VULNERABILITYSHAKINGINTENSITY

EFFECTS111

$ SHAKINGINTENSITY

EFFECTS 1/ $ WIlow

LIGHTno damage to slightcracking

low 0-5% low LIGHT no damage low 0%

MODERATEmajor cracking, somedebris on stairs if enclosure walls are brittle

low 5-20% low MODERATE no damage low 0-5% low

SEVERE

falling of debris frombrittle enclosure walls;with severe building damage, collapse of stairway

mod 20100%

high SEVEREslight cracking but stillsafe and usable low 5-10% low

Nimil

Ill LIFE SAFETY HAZARD % OF REPLACEMENT VALUE DAMAGED nu POSTEARTHQUAKE OUTAGEown

0 7' 54 106

PARAPETSDAMAGE EXAMPLE

I PROTECTIVE COUNTERMEASURE

r , , ,

.

Iasolo--..-.-- PAR"pair eguk4z6,

earthquake: 1979 Coyote Lake, Californiacredit: a)Robert Reitherman; b)William T. Holmes APPROXIMATE COST: $5-10 per lineal foot

EXISTING VULNERABILITY UPGRADED VULNERABILITYSHAKINGINTENSITY EFFECTS

ANSHAKINGINTENSITY EFFECTS 411 $ FIPN

INmuLIGHT some small pieces may dis

lodge low 0-5% low LIGHT no damage low 0% low

MODERATE some old deterioratedparapets fall' high 5 50% mod MODERATE no damage low 0% low

SEVEREnearly all .nonreinforcedor deteriorated parapetsfall

high 50100%

high SEVERE sznnet ic)ifacstig crLfesslodgelow 0-10% low

III LIFE SAFETY HAZARD % OF REPLACEMENT VALUE DAMAGED POSTEARTHQUAKE OUTAGE1 1 ri_0 9 55

HANGING SPACE PEATERSDAMAGE EXAMPLE PROTECTIVE COUNTERMEASURE

...s. , -4

emus rowerilaFuca. Room ..:41114.446*

NUS

Vats

IOW"IN Gyp.,

,-..-;---

FLEXious454S LINE

t-

A

.......------1.......-----

4 'COOP49TYCUGTVROM

arAcass ALL4 SIMS.

NM: deNERAWr-THE MOM reld3g,TH/e, !WAG-IN& 1The berreg

earthquake: 1971 San Fernandocredit: C. Wilton, Scientific Service, Inc. APPROXIMATE COST: $100 per heater

EXISTING VULNERABILITY UPGRADED VULNERABILITYSHAKINGINTENSITY

EFFECTS 0 $ r.vg,

1111

101

SHAKINGINTENSITY

EFFECTS-

4,Uhl

MIIII II

LIGHTslight chance of enougtiswaying to cause gas leaking mod 0-20% low LIGHT no damage low 0% low

MODERATElikely that swaying willcause damage pr gas leak;also fire damage

high 2050%

low MODERATE no damage low 0% low

SEVERE

severe damage; falling unless connections of hangars are unusually strong;also fire damage

high 50100%

mod SEVEREchance of enough swayingto cause slight damage,but no leaks/rires

low 0-5% low

141%,1

IIII LIFE SAFETY HAZARD % OF REPLACEMENT VALUE DAMAGED66E11NNW POSTEARTHQUAKE OUTAGE

I f t gem

56

4. Developing Earthquake Protection Programa

The preceding sections of this booklet have providedyou with information. Now, how do you apply thisinformation?

Estimating VulnerabilitiesThe first step in using the information in this

booklet is to estimate the vulnerabilities of thenonstructural components found in your facility. Incomplex cases, consultant expertise may be advisable, andthis is discussed below. If you have no major potentialproblems, a major effort to deal with nonstructuraldamage may not be warranted. In many cases, a non-engineer can at least make a preliminary assessment ofthe approximate degree of risk by use of the informationpresented and by keeping in mind three basic questions aseach nonstructural item is considered as found in yourfacility:

Would anyone get hurt by this item in anearthquake?

Would a large property loss result?Would interruptions and outages be a serious

problem?

113 ST

This will produce a tentative list of items toconsider in greater detail, and in most cases a largenumber of items will not present a significant enoughproblem on one of these grounds to justify furtherattention, though at this initial stage, it is better to beconservative and overestimate vulnerabilities than to beoptimistic. The list can always be shortened later.Figure 17 is provided here to aid in the process oftabulating nonstructural items and estimating theirvulnerability hased on tne commentary provided earlier.Figure 18 illustrates how this blank form might be filledin (though extra photocopied sheets would often benecessary to cover the array of nonstructual items foundin most buildings). After listing the items in whateverorder they appear in the process of sur-eying the facility,attempt to rank the priority for more attention of eachitem from number one to the least important in thecolumn provided.

Estimating OastsFor each of these items, the cost estimating factors

provided in the charts of Chapter 3 can be used to pro-

114

Facilit

Figure 17

Summary OenAssumed Intensit

PRIORITY NONSTRUCTURALITEM

LOCATION QUANTITY

VULNERABILITYESTIMATED 1

RETROFIT

ESTIMATED

RETROFITCOST,SUBTOTAL

NOTES

IP $COST, EACH

ITEMN1'41ffilliMUMImps

TOTAL

41 LIFE SAFETY HAZARD % OF REPLACEMENT VALUE DAMAGED EARTHQUAKE OUTAGE01441

WV POST.-nisi

175 Se 116

Facility: XYZ OFFICE

Figure 18

Illustration of Urge of Blank Form of Figure 17

Assumed Intensity: Severe

PRIORITY NONSTRUCTURALITEM

LOCATIONVULNERABILITY ESTIMATED

RETROFITCOST, EACH

ITEM

ESTrMATED

RETROFITCOST,

SUBTOTAL

NOTESQUANTITY

0 $Noll,1AbbllIIMMIIma

4 air

conditionerroof 1 mod 25-

75%mod $100 $100 sits on springs; no

seismic restraints;

5 suspendedceiling

throughout 5000

sq. ft.

mod 100

%

mod $.20/sq. ft. $1,000 no diagonal wires

1 water heater utilityroom

1 high 100

%

high $50 $50 gas fired; no flexiblepipe; no anchorage

3 tall shelving employeestorage

40

lin. ft.

high 100 low* $5/1in. ft. $200 * 10'. because contents

not essential;unanchored; 8 ft. high

6 freestandingpartitions

secretar-ial

stations

20

@6 ft.

low 0-

5%

low

4* -0-

stable layout (returns)

2 fluorescentlignts

officesandlobby

50 high 25-100

%

mod $30 $1,500 fixtures just restloosely on ceiling grid

TOTAL $2,850

# LIFE SAFETY HAZARD % OF REPLACEMENT VALUE DAMAGED POSTEARTHQUAKE OUTAGEN111mb1011suallMOM

117 59 118

duce subtotals for all of the items in each category.When added together, these subtotrls will produce anestimated total seismic retrofit cost for the entirefacility. For new construction rather than existingbuildings, if nonstructural protection measures are takeninto account early in design, the costs will be much less.If a number of repetitive protective measures are to beinstalled in a large facility, the unit cost will also belowered. For both these cases, at least a 10% lowerfigure can be assumed.

Included within a consideration of costs should beany disruptions that installation of retrofit devices mightnecessitate, or any inconveniences associated with themin daily use. For example, some of the retrofit measuresdescribed could only be implemented when the buildingwas not in normal use, and the installation of straps orother removable restrainers implies that the user will re-attach the strap each time the anchored item is moved.

By photocopying the blank form in Figure 17 anddeveloping different lists, the prioritizing process can bedone more easily by doing it in a few steps, rather than inone initial tabulation. One list can describe a morecomplete retrofit package with more costs added in, whileanother can add up a more minimally protective but alsoless expensive pagicage that deals with only the mostprominent problems. It is also possible to list the itemsfirst for one intensity of shaking, such as severe, and thenfor another inteusity (moderate). In this .ay you willsee the difference between these two levels protection.General advice on the subject of where to tiw the linebetween completeness and quality on the one hand andcost on the other is difficult to provide, except to notethat it is better to focus on the most significant problemsand tend to them efficiently than to develop all-inclusivelists that are too extensive to implement. A two phaseapproach may be desirable: Draw up and implement a

short list of the most critical upgrading projects, and thenafter evaluation of the success of that first phaseprogram, develop a second phase program to deal withother items farther down on the list. Only a very fewpeople have ever had occasion to have any experiencewith implementing nonstructural earthquake protectionmeasures, and hence starting small may be a wiseapproach. Seismic retrofitting is easier than it might atfirst appear, and experience with the administrative andtechn!cal aspects of the process are quickly gained, so theimportant thing is to make a start and do the first effortwell.

As an aid in assigning priorities, you may refer backto Figures 7, 11, and 14 in Chapter 2 which list typicalnonstructural items found in office, retail, andgovernment buildings respectively. These suggestedpriorities cannot take into account whether items inspecific cases are already seismically protected. Thereare valid reasons for why some individuals might rankthese problems differently, depending primarily upon howmuch risk is considered acceptable and how much moneyis available to deal with the problem.

Implementation StrategiesHow should protective techniques be implemented?

The answer depends upon the nature of the physicalconditions in the facility and the characteristics of theorganization. The following suggestions can be consid-ered by the reader in the context of his or her ownsituation.

Self-help vs. Use of Consultants - Self-helpimplementation of a program can be adequate where theprobable seriousness of any problems is small or the in-house familiarilty with engineering or construction isgreater than average. For larger facilities, engineeringor architectural-engineering consultants may be quite

cost-effectively employed to survey for vulnerabilitiesand design retrofits. The proverb has it that "anengineer is someone who can do for one dollar what anydamn fool can do for two." In some cases, after aninitial survey is conducted and a report prepared by anexpert, the remainder of the implementation could behandled in-house without further assistance. One of thelarger nonstructural earthquake hazard evaluation andretrofit programs is that of the Veterans Administrationfor its hospitals, and the typical procedure followed bythe VA has been to hire consultant experts to first assessthe site's risk of experiencing significant shaking, then toreview the facility and list specific items which arevulnerable to future earthquakes, grouped by priority andwith estimated costs. The VA's own maintenance staffsat each hospital then are given many of theimplementation tasks after the consultants established theoutline of a program. As mentioned in the introduction,there are limits to the self-help diagnosis and prescriptionapproach, and especially if larger buildings, or moreserious safety hazards, property risks, or criticalfunctional requirements, are involved, the use of aconsultant may be advisable.

Earthquake Engineer - This is a commonly usedterm, but the State does not have any such licensecategory, and "earthquake engineers" are not listed in theYellow Pages. A structural engineer (see below)exper;^nced in earthquake analysis is the basic definitionof "earthquake engineer".

Structural Engineer - A structural engineer is a civilengineev (see below) who has gone on to obtain anadditional license from the State based on workexperience and examinations specifically on topicsrelating to structural engineering. Structural engineersare more likely to be familiar with building constructionthan many civil engineers who specialize in other areas.

61

Some structural engineers have had extensive experiencein designing nonstructural anchorages and protectivemeasures, often involving hospitals because of theirstricter building code requirements. Structural engineersare listed in the Yellow Pages under "Engineers,structural."

Civil Engineer - A civil engineer is licensed by theState. Some civil engineers specialize in fields such asairport and harbor design, utility systems, or soilsengineering that do not involve the structural design andanalysis of buildings.

Mechanical Engineer - A mechanical engineer hasobtained a State license based on education, experience,and examinations. Some mechanical engineers practiceaspects of their discipline completely unrelated tobuildings (such as the design of power plants, automotiveengines, or machinery). Mechanical engineers whospecialize in the design of HVAC (heating-ventilating-airconditioning) systems, or "mechanical" systems, forbuildings, are often familiar with these types ofnonstructural items, but they typically rely on structuralengineering consultants for the design of earthquakebracing of mechanical equipment.

Architect - An architect is also licensed by theState based on education, work experience, andexaminations. Since architects must be knowledgeableabout many aspects of building design and construction,generally only a small part of their education, workexperience, and examinations, has been devoted tostructural engineering, and even architects licensed inCalifornia are not generally capable of making seismiccomputations and structural detailing decisions as can astructural engineer. In general, architects rely on in-house or consultant structural engineers, and on newconstruction, the engineer works for the architect rather

122

than directly for the owner. Architects are generallyresponsible, rather than the engineer, for the design ofwindows, partitions, ceilings, and many other nonstruc-tural items. It is important, therefore, for the architectto be made aware of the concerns of the client on thesubject of protection from nonstructural earthquakedamage.

Interior Designer - An interior designer or spaceplanner need not have any particular background inengineering, though in some cases this designer will bemost intimately involved with the specification of filecabinets, furniture, finish materials, etc. Designs byinterior designers can be reviewed by a structuralengineer to assure appropriate detailing to deal withearthquake hazards.

Speciality Contractors - Contractors in various

specialties, as well as in the category of generalcontractor, are licensed by the State. Contractors canimplement retrofit schemes designed by others, or insome cases can help devise the retrofit technique if noformal engineering is required. Contractors who areexperienced in installing new suspended ceilings up toearthquake resistant standards, for example, may beskilled at the seismic retrofitting of existing ceilings.

Integration with Maintenance Programs - One of theeasier means of gradually implementing earthquakeprotection into an existing building is to trainmaintenance personnel to identify and correctnonstructural hazards that they may discover as theysurvey the building for other purposes, or to correct theproblems identified by an engineer as in the case of VAhospitals. A disadvantage of this approach is that theprotection is only gradually increased, and in some casesthe economy of doing several related upgrading projectsat the same time is not exploited. Note below under the

62

heading of sustaining protection that a maintenanceprogram can also be used for upkeep of protectivemeasures.

Remodeling - If there are other reasons forremodeling, there may be an opportunity for increasingthe protection of several nonstructural components at thesame time, especially ceilings, partitions, windows, airconditioning ducts, or other built-in features. In manycases, remodeling efforts have lessened rather thanincreased earthquake protection by the accidentalmodification of components that originally received someseismic-related attention from a structural engineer orarclattect. If an architect, interior designer, orcontractor is handlirg the remodeling, the possibility ofincorporating additional earthquake protection into thespace should be discussed, and a structural engineer'sexpertise should be employed where indicated.

Incremental Upgrading - In some cases, it may bepossible to deal with different areas within a building atdifferent times, or to select one or more types ofnonstructural components throughout a building andupgrade them at the same time. Some projects can becompleted in a weekend, enabling equipment or otheritems to be retrofitted without interrupting the normalwork flow, for example. Companies with annualshutdowns may find upgrading the highest priority itemsas each shutdown occurs the easiest course. Retrofitwork that interrupts the use of a space, such as bringingin ladders or scaffolding to work on the ceiling or ceiling-located items, could be restricted to limited areas in afacility at a given moment, minimizing the overalldisruption.

New Construction - In this case there is thepossibility of anchoring, bracing, or restraining all itemsat the same time according to a unified design. As noted

earlier, nonstructural upgrading work in new constructionis more efficient and less costly than retrofitting existingbuildings. This all-at-once implementation process canalso be used in existing facilities either when the extentof the work required is not too great, or when the work isextensive but the resulting disruption implied is tolerable.When a building is temporarily vacant, it is a favorabletime for this approach. If the organization is large, thedevelopment and adoption of nonstructural guidelines tobe used by designers or contractors could be considered;this is discussed in Chapter 6. For small companies ororganizations, at least a letter or conversation could bedevoted to bringing up the problem of designingearthquake resistance into nonstructural items. Providingthe architect or other designer with a copy of this bookletwould be advisable.

Sustaining Protection - Some nonstructuralprotection devices, such as anchorage hardware forexterior objects, may deteriorate with time if notprotected from rust. Interior fastenings and restraintsmay be removed over time as people move equipment orother items and fail to re-install the protection devices.Figure 19 illustrates a common problem in maintainingthe "human" rather than "hardware" aspect ofnonstructural protection. As noted above, remodelingprojects can result in elimination of protective features ifthere are no seismic guidelines. Training is required toinsure that gas cylinders, storage rack contents, officeequipment chemicals, etc. are properly stored.

Maintenance personnel may be the likely people toperiodically survey the building to E 3e if earthquakeprotection measures are still effectively protectingmechanical equipment, such as emergency generators,water heaters, etc. Supervisors can be made responsiblefor an annual review of their work spaces. If there is aseparate facilities or physical plant office in an organ-

63

ization, that may be a logical place for the responsibilityfor sustaining protection to reside. Organizations withsafety departmenth have successfully assi7ned the role ofoverseeing nonstructural earthquake protection to thisfunctional area.

In the case of the University of California, SantaBarbara, the implementation and maintenance of acampus-wide program of preventing nonstructuralearthquake hazards was initiated by a one-page policymemo from the chancellor. Each department head wasmade responsible for implementation of the policy, andthe campus Office of Environmental Health and Safetywas given the job of advising departments onimplementation, making surveys, and evaluating theoverall program's effectiveness, (Refs, 8 and 9).

EvaluationHow good is your nonstructural earthquake

protection program? Is it worth the cost? How do youevaluate its strong points or deficiencies?

There are two basic criteria to employ inaccomplishing this task. First, how well has the programmet its stated objectives? Have the costs been withinbudget? Have the tasks been completed on schedule? Isthe scope of the effort as broad as was intended, or havenonstructural items been neglected which were targetedfor retrofitting, or have employee training units orexercises of additional response plan features not yetbeen implemented? And finally, how good is the qualityof the measures implemented? Have the retrofitmeasures been correctly installed? Is the training takenseriously?

The second basic evaluation technique is to ask: Ifthe earthquake happened today, how much better off

126

"^ 06, ON it

...marstoLl.

a. Example of a "human" rather than "hardware"problem in maintaining protection from nonstruc-tural damage: the chains provided are not beingused.Photo credit: William Holmes

b. Example of damage to unrestrained gas cylin-ders in the 1971 San Fernando eatthquake. A fireoccurred nearby at this facility when an oxygentank leaked.

Photo credit: C. Wilton, Scientific Service, Inc.

Figure 19

Sustaining Nonstructural Protection

64

4 L)

would we be than if we had never developed a nonstruc-tural protection program? This can be done in a roughcost-benefit format by estimating the total cost of theprogram, including estimates of staff time rot charged tothat particular project, which will be the "Cost" portionof the ratio. The benefit is essentially the differencebetween the expected loss without the program and theevected loss with the program.

The information in Chapter 3 can be used toestimate these costs of damage. In many cases, thevalue of not experiencing outages, or of preventinginjuries, will be very significant, and property low savingscannot be the sole measure of the benefit. Cost-benefitcomputations should only be used as a guide, rather thanas automatic decisionmaking devices, since theearthquake costs and especially the benefits can only bevery approximately estimated.

5. Emergency Planning Guidance

What types of nonstructural damage should beconsidered and dealt with by an earthquake response plan?How should training and exercises be conducted toproperly take into account the prospect of nonstructuraldamage?

Implications of Nog-structural Damage for Emer-gency Planning - The first step is to develop a validpicture of the probable post-earthquake state of thefacility. The nonstructural survey and vulnerabilityanalysis will indicate what types of items are present andwill at least approximately assess their earthquakeresistance. The better this survey and analysis, the morelikely the envisaged post-earthquake conditions willactually materialize, while less evert assessments will bemore likely to either over- or under-estimate damage.Even with the most thorough of analyses, however, thereis still great uncertainty in the process of estimatingearthquake performance.

130

One approach to this uncertainty is to assume theworst. This conservative approach is not warranted andis prohibitively expensive for purposes of allocatingconstruction money to retrofit items, but it may beinexpensive in the initial stage of the emergency responseplanning process to at least briefly consider the impact ofsevere damage to each nonstructural item on the list.Ask yourself this simple question: What would be theemergency planning implications if each particularnonstructural item were to be severely damaged?

As a first step, consider the possibility that anemergency power generator, for example, will bedamaged or its supporting services rendered inoperative,and consider the consequences. This will provide theworst-case scenario.

Your particular generator may be anchored withadequate bolts into the concrete slab, it may have its own

66ti

fuel supply rather than rely on natural gas, the batteriesmay be restrained, and the cooling water system, if any,may be earthquake protected. You test your generatormonthly. You are confident that your generator willwork after an earthquake. However, out of 100 very wellprotected generators such as described above, at least afew would probably fail to run after a large earthquake.The probable outcome is that the generator will workproperly, but there is still an outside chance that it won't.If there are inexpensive backup planning measures toinclude in written plans, or in training or exercises, thenthis may be a form of inexpensive insurance. Suchinexpensive measures might include: occasionally includ-ing in an earthquake scenario the complete absence ofelectricity (by switching off all electricity except whereit would be dangerous to occupants or deleterious toequipment); testing battery-powered exit lights; buying afew flashlights; maintaining a list of local supplies ofrental generators; and exploring whether recreationalvehicle generators could supply power to run someessential functions, and if so, including the idea as abackup tactic in the earthquake plan so that employeescould be quickly queried to see if some RV's might beavailable for use by the company or organization.

After at least thinking about the worst-caseimplications with regard to each nonstructural item, itwill then be necessary to move on to the probable casescenario. Because emergency planning resources arelimited, extensive effort cannot be devoted to everyconceivable problem. Based on the approximateestimates of damage provided in chapter 3 andsummarized using Figure 17 of Chapter 4, a description ofthe damage for each item is available. If items areactually in the process of being retrofitted whenemergency planning is underway, the upgradedFerformance could be used as a basis for planning ratherthan the greater damage that is associated with the as-iscase.

132 67

For almost all types of nonstructural damage, theoften-stated advice to take cover beneath a desk or tableis valid. While the photos of earthquake damagepresented earlier may look frightening, a detailed lookwill show that if an occupant had been in the vicinity ofthe damage but kneeling under a desk or table, it wouldhave been very difficult for injury to have resulted.Standing in a doorway would have provided someprotection, but less than taking refuge under a desk ortable. This advice, while very simple, requires sometraining and exercises if the technique is to work. Somepeople may have an immediate impulse to try to runoutdoors if the shaking is severe or lasts for more than afew seconds. Many adults will feel embarrassed aboutcrawling under a table. The frequent earthquake drillingof studemts that occurs in California public schoolsappears to be very successful in getting students toquickly take cover and follow instructions duringearthquakes, and similar drills, if only annual, arerequired if adult office workers, salespersons, orgovernment employees are to also protect themselves ifthe need arises.

In settings where there are no desks or tables,occupants should get down beside the next best thing: Inan auditorium or public assembly setting, kneeling downbetween the seats is the best advice.

Earthquake PlansThe following points relating to nonstructural

damage should be covered in an earthquake plan.

Pre-earthquake Tasks - The document can describethe identification and retrofitting of nonstructural items,and procedures for routinely checking to see thatprotective measures are still effective. If employees areexpected to be briefly instructed in what to do in case ofearthquake, and to have a brief drill, then that should bewritten into the plan also.

Earthquake Emergency Response Tasks - During andimmediately after the earthquake, what tasks should beaccomplished? The tasks can be made contingent uponthe severity of the earthquake and the amount of damagethat is immediately seen to have occurred. If thestructure of the building is obviously damaged -- thereare sizable cracks in concrete walls, floors or columns orthe building stands out of plumb, or any portion of it haspulled apart or collapsed -- then evacuation of thebuilding rather than a thorough survey of nonstructuraldamage will obvi.ously be in order. If there is noapparent structural damage, a survey of the mechanicalequipment, elevators, etc., could be listed as theappropriate response.

Responsibilities For each task, someone must haveresponsibility. If no responsibility is stated in t plan, itis likely that no one will carry out the task. Because theearthquake may happen at any time (and will have a two-thirds chance of happening outside normal work hours),back-up positions for responsibilities should be listed. IL

is preferable to list positions rather than individuals'names to minimize the obsolescence of the plan, but inany event, someone must have responsibility for the planitself and keeping it current. Figure 20 provides a blankform for use in collecting information which will often befound necessary in formulating an earthquake plan.

TrainingHow should you establish an earthquake training

program? Ironically, the best advice may be to avoidestablishing an earthquake training program; instead,integrate earthquake training tasks into other ongoingtraining programs. The infrequency of earthquakes cancause the best of training programs to slowly lose theireffectiveness or completely die out if the only impetusbehina the training is the earthquake threat. Anearthquake training program that requires its own sepa-

rate funding will probably have a relatively low priority inthe overall ranking of training concerns, whereas ways ofslightly expanding existing training programs may befound to deal with the problems unique to earthquakes atsmall cost.

Fire safety is typically the most common of hazardsaround which hazard training is based. In the process ofinstructing employees about extinguishers, alarms,notification procedures, safe storage methods, exiting,and other fire-related topics, it may be possible to buildin an earthquake safety training unit at the same time.Security staffs should be trained in the process ofresponding to earthquakes at the same time they arefamiliarized with other emergency plans for theft, fire, orother hazards. Maintenance personnel must be trained incertain upkeep and operational aspects of the heating-cooling-ventilating-system, elevators, plumbing, lights,sprinkler system, and so on, and many of these items areprecisely the components of a building that will requireattention in an earthquake hazard reduction or responseplan. Workplace safety training sessions are ideal forumsfor dealing with the earthquake subject.

To keep the earthquake training requirements asfew as possible, consider the unique aspects of earthquakeproblems that are not already covered by preparations forother hazards. For example, the fact that the phonesmay not work is one of the key ways in which earthquakeresponse differs from that for fire or other hazards.Individual emergency plans may contemplate a telephoneoutage, electrical outage, need to evacuate the building,traffic disruption, injury, pipe leakage, or windowbreakage, but it is unlikely that any other hazard's planwill deal with all of these events occurringsimultaneously. At a minimum, having an earthquakebackup plan for reporting injuries or fires in the eventthat the telephones are inoperable, is one essential fea-

.05

1. Facility/Organization name:

2. Address:

3. Building Ownership: __owned by occupant, __leased by occupant

4. Type of organization: company, __government agency, __other:

5. Organizational structure: (overall organizational chart)

6. Functional responsibilitiesWho has responsibility for:

authorization for earthquake program, budgetting:detailed administration of earthquake program:safety training courses:posters, brochures, memos, newsletters:workplace safety, OSHA compliance:fire brigades, emergency response teamsfirst aid, health care:personnel: absenteeism, help with personal problems:insurance:risk management, risk control:facilities management: new construction and remodeling:facilities management: maintenance:facilities management: operation of mechanical/electrical systems:facilities management: A & E; post-EQ safety inspections:security:operational authority for evacuations, building closings:public relations, press statements:communications:food service:transportation: personnel; cargo:

Figure 20Information Gathering Checklist:Orgare,zational Chtuacteristics

13 6 69

7. Relationship to off-site portions of the organization:Which communication/transportation/interaction links are most essential?

1.

2.

3.

8. Relationship to other organizations: Which links are essential?

1.

2.

3.

9. On-site functions: Which are most essential?

1.

2.

3..

Figure 20 (continued)Information Gathering CheeldistOrganizational Characteristics

ture to include. The nearest fire station should belocated and indicated on a street map so that aid can bequickly summoned in person if medical or fire aid isrequired and the phones are out. (Even if ambulanceservice does not operate through the fire department, theradio equipment available at any fire station will allowfor communication with other agencies).

In addition to adding earthquake training to otherongoing training programs, it may be reasonable tooccasionally devote brief training sessions exclusively tothe earthquake subject, on an annual basis. An annualtraining seheule can be easily coordinated with an annualexercise schedule, as discussed below.

ExercisesIn compiling a list of nonstructural damage

situations for inclusion in an earthquake scenario to beused for an exercise, estimates of damage derived fromChapter 3 and summarized on Figure 17 of Chapter 4 canbe used.

The list of nonstructural damage events may growlengthy, and it may include potential nonstructuraldamage events which could only be simulated in anexercise at great cost or with great disruption of normalfunctions. Full-scale evacuations of high-rise buildingswithout the use of elevators are rarely conducted, forexample, and rather one or two floors are evacuatedperiodically. Turning the electricity off accuratelysimulates an earthquake-caused power outage and theattendant problems of visibility in windowless officeareas, lack of air conditioning, and so on, but this may betoo disruptive, or in some cases unsafe, to do throughoutan entire building. In a large company or governmentoffice, one department, one wing or work area of thebuilding, could be included in a more realistic simulationof effects, while the remainder of the facility is allowed

138 71

to function normally or only participates in a brief takecover exercise.

Employees with specialized earthquake responsetasks, such as the maintenance personnel who shouldcheck for water or gas leaks, or supervisors who would beresponsible for checking on the well-being of employeesin their areas, or a safety or security officer responsiblefor communications within the building or with outsideemergency services, should have more frequent trainingand exercises. An annual schedule of a brief exercise,such as having people take cover beneath desks andreminding them not to use elevators after earthquakes, isprobably adequate, for most employees, whereas morefrequent brief drills for specialized task employees maybe warranted.

Master Earthquake Planning ChecklistThe checklist in Figure 21 is keyed to the chapters

in this booklet.

1. Establish executive policy requiring a nonstructural evaluation; allocate funds for initial work. Responsibility:

CEO, Board of Directors, Manager, Executive Committee. See especially Chapter 1.

2. Survey for nonstructural vulnerabilities. Responsibility: outside consultant or in-house engineering,

maintenance, safety, or other depertment. See Chapters 3 and 4.

3. Analyze the conditions found and estimate future earthquake behavior. Responsibility: same as number 2.

See Chapters 3 and 4.

4. Develop a list of nonstructural items to be retrofitted, with priorities and cost estimates. Responsibility:

same as number 2; may include bids from contractors. See Chapter 4.4.1 If a facilities development guidelines document is to be produced, coordinate criteria to be used onfuture new construction with standards for retrofitting. Responsibility: same as number 2. See Chapter 6.

5. Decide what items are to be retrofitted, how the work will be done, and by whom. Responsibility: same as

for number 1, with input from number 2.

6. Implement the retrofitting. Responsibility: in-house staff or contractors, with administration of contracting

or tasking by number 2 or in-house construction administration office. See Chapter 4.

7. Develop an earthquake plan, with pre-, during, and post-emergency earthquake tasks and responsibilities

itemized. Responsibility: consultant or in-house safety or other department, with general policy and budgetting same

as number 1 above. See Chapter 5.

8. Train personnel in accordance with the plan of step 7. Responsibility: training, safety, or other department.

See Chapter 5.

9. Plan and implement exercises which will test the training of step 8 and the planning of step 7. Responsibility:

same as for 7 or 8. See Chapter 5.

10. Evaluate the performance of the above program, preferably within one year after inception or according the

deadlines set in an implementation schedule, and annually thereafter. Responsibility: same as for number 1 in smaller

organizations, or same as for 7 above. See Chapter 4.

Figure 21Master Earthquake Planning Checklist

72 141

6. Facilities Development Guidelines

For a large organization, the development offormalized nonstructural construction guidelines may beappropriate to control the work of architects, engineers,interior designer/space planners, and contractors. As ageneral rule regarding new construction or renovations, ifthe drawings do not show specific attachments andbracings, and if the written specifications do not mentionearthquake protective devices such as anchors, braces,etc., then the contractor who builds or installs the itemscannot be assumed to think up special protectivemeasures and spend time and materials to implementthem. The limitations of the current building code insolving the nonstructural earthquake damage problemwere discussed in Chapter 1.

Written guidelines to prevent or limit nonstructuraldamage might include the following.

SeoPeTo what purchases, remodelings, or new construction

do the guidelines apply? (They cannot apply to allnonstructural items since this broad definition would

4213

mean that furnishings such as waste paper baskets, desks,pictures hung on the wall, etc., would be included).Items to exclude might be lightweight non-hazardous,unessential and inexpensive items that are not mountedoverhead or above a certain height off the floor (42inches to 5 feet are criteria in use). Adherence to thebuilding code could be considered adequate for all butcertain specified items, such as computers or otheressential equipment, which are called out.

The guidelines might apply only to work dohe byoutside designers and contractors, .n-house facilities workand maintenance, or individual workplace standards. It ispreferable to address these three separate audiencesseparately. The scope could include new constructiononly, or renovations, or both. Including both cases isrecommended.

ResponsibilityWho has the in-house responsibility for maintaining

the guidelines and assuring their implementation? Thisshould probably be the same office that oversees or coor-

143

dinates architecture and engineering projects at present.What responsibilities does the designer or contractor havefor notifying or certifying to the owner that provisions ofthe guidelines are being followed? (This responsibilityshould become part of the contract.)

General IntentThe importance of the nonstructural earthquake

protection program should be stated, preferably by acover letter or introductory statement from the chiefexecutive, department head or governing board. If theguidelines are the only assured means of communicatingabout the earthquake topic to designers or contractors,introductory information could be added as well (such asexamples of the types of damage that might occur if theguidelines were not followed). This booklet providesmore background information on this topic than mostdesigners or contractors have previously acquired, andportions or all of it could be made available to them toaccomplish this purpose.

Performance CriteriaIf the client wants a design professional (architect

or engineer) to do more than merely conform to thebuilding code's minimum requirements, it is desirable toexplicitly state the higher level of performance desired.This can be done in a verbal way, such as "In the eventthat the maximum credible earthquake occurs, thefollowing nonstructural items should remain undamagedand functional, assuming the st ucture remainsserviceable. For all other nonstructural items, only lifesafety is important, and the anchorage provisions of theUniform Building Code should be followed with regard toany item weighing more than pounds, or locatedmore than above the floor and weighing more than

pounds." The specified weight might be one pound.15eri'quare foot, and the height five feet.

14474

Another way to state the basic performancecriterion would be, "Within hours/days after theworst earthquake that is expected to occur on averageonce a centtwy, the following nonstructural items wouldbe at least percent functional." Other publishedcriteria could be referenced. For very importantprojects, some of the requirements imposed on Californiahospitals in Title 24 n f the California Administrative Codemight be appropria....., but this would have to be doneselectively rather than referencing an entire code with allof its non-applicable provisions.

The criteria should include an indication as to howmuch the client is willing to pay to obtain the higherlevel of protection. Estimates could be prepared foreach job and approved by the client, or a generalstatement that "any cost up to percent additionalcost" (with the percentage specirrea in terms of totalconstruction cost or estimated cost for that nonstructuralitem only), which the architect or engineer thinksreasonable, is allowable, with costs estimated to be inexcess of this limit to be brought to the attention of theclient for explicit approval during design.

Quality AssuranceWhat means of verifying and testing compliance

with the guidelines will be required? For example,specific procedures for test loading (pulling) a percentageof installed anchor bolts could be specified, if retrofittinganchorages into concrete slabs or walls is to be a commonpart of future projects. For installaton of drill-in anchorbolts in hospitals in California, which are subject tostricter earthquake regulations than for most buildings,for example, the Office of the State Architect requiresin-place proof testing of half of the bolts to twice theirallowable or design-basis loads, and if any bolts pull outthen the adjacent bolts nuAst also be tested.

Coordination with Now-asismio Speeifications, Codes, and&dibbles

The need to provide earthquake protection withoutsacrificing fire, seisurity. or other requirements should bestated. One common °wake, arises in the acousticallydesirable tue of vibration isolators to allow equipmentsuch as air conditioning units or generators to operatewithout transmitting the full force of their noisyvibrations into the building see Figure 22. The easiestearthquake solution is to bolt the equipment rigidly to thesupporting structure, but this would compromise thespring-mount vibration isolation system. Restrainingangles can be installed which will still solve theearthquake problem while also allowing the acousticsolution to operate unhindered.

Sorthquake Provisiom of Building Codes and StandardsMost desigi and construction contract language will

require compliance with locally applicable codes.However, as discussed in the introduction of Chapter 1,the building code does not deal very extensively with thenonstructural earthquake problem. Mere conformancewith the letter of the law, the Uniform Building Code,would not require earthquake anchorage or restraint for acomputer, tall file cabinet, heavy mirror, or smallcontainers of chemicals. In Addition, a client mightdesire some items that are listed in the code to beprovided with a higher level of protection than the codeminimums. The fact that the guidelines may call formeasures in excess of code should be pointed out."Whichever requirements are more restrictive" is aphrase that could be used to indicate that the code mustbe met, and if the guidelines so require, the code shouldbe exceeded. This is related to the subtopic ofPerformance Criteria above.

Early discussions with the architect, engineer, orinterior designer/space planner will help to deal with this

14675

issue. In new construction, an issue that is almost neverarticultted by the client (simply because the client is notknowledgeable about earthquiike engineering) is thestiffness vs. flexibility decision. In the choice of thestructural system for the building and in its detaileddesign, the architect and engineer can often choose ratherflexible frame systems, which are economical becausethey can be designed for lower earthquake foces by codethan a comparably sized rigidly walled ("shear wall")system. This was discussed briefly in Chapter 1. Thedrift or sway limitations in the code are only minimumsset essentially on the bisis of structural safety.Buildings designed to have less drift or horizontalswaying, the shear walled building or the bkiang with aframe 'that is stiffer than the code minimum, willexperience less-nonstivetural damage, and if the cost issmall it may be 'advantageous to exceed the code'sminimal requiremenls. Related to the drift problem isthe desirability of providing movement joints to allow forprotection of windows and partitions during earthquakes.If the owner eicpects to receive 'extra attention in thedesign of these features it is necessary to discuss it withthe architect and engineer.

The design f(ree level is another question. By"force level" we mean the amount of inertial or shakingearthquake force to design an item to resist. Thebuilding code specifies different percentages of theweight of an object to be used as the horizontalearthquake force, as mentioned in Chapter 1. As alsonoted earlier, many items are not even covered by thecode, and hence the conscious selection of inertial forcelevels will be required by the client or designprofessional. Requiring a 100% coefficient (if the objectweighs 100 pounds, then its anchorage must be able toresist a horizontal force of 100 pounds) would be agenerally conservative criterion for most *vs, in mostbuildings in California, for example, although ith cost of

147

"It

4r,e

'0 4

,

' ,

F 22

Disregard for Seismic Protection

The warning label was intended to prevent transmission of machinery vibrations intothe floor; however, in seismic areas, earthquake restraint must also be accomplished

Photo credit: William T. Holmes

148 76 I 4 9

this extra conservatism is often small since the labor willprobably be the same and the difference in hardwarecosts are generally quite small.

Prescriptive DetailsIf there are efficient and safe specific methods of

dealing with repetitive nonstructural problems, then thesemight be detailed with drawings and required whereapplicable. Chapter 3 provides a starting point for thedevelopment of such standard details, which should bereviewed by a knowledgeable design professional to insuretheir appropriateness for the cases at hand. Thereferences listed in the Bibliography are other usefulsources of information.

FeesIf the architect, engineer, or interior designer/space

planner is called upon to perform a service not usuallyprovided, the fee will logically be higher. For office andcommercial buildings, standard practice would uictatethat only a very small amount of the architect's orengineer's time would be spent on nonstructuralprotection to meet minimum code requirements. If thework is performed on a time and materials basis, ratherthan as a percentage of construction cost, the extra workspent on seismic problems is already accounted for.Designing details for a variety of types of nonstructuralsituations can be time consuming.

150

71

7. Appendix: Structural Damage

This booklet is focused on the nonstructural ratherthan structural aspects of earthquakes, but the followingbrief comments provide an introduction to importantstructural problems and solutions.

In California, most buildings will perform well inearthquake& The first fact to grasp is that localizeddestruction is the threat California faces, rather than thenear-complete leveling of towns, which has occurred inMorocco, Iran, Turkey, Chile, and other countries. Afterpast California earthquakes, the typical scene in the mostheavily shaken area is that one building on a block willcollapse, while the others, although perhaps damaged tovarying degrees, remain intact and standing. Scenes ofSan Francisco reduced to rubble in 1906 are post-firephotos, not post-earthquake photos. See Figure 23, anaerial photo taken just after the 1925 Santa Barbaraearthquake. As wu,'; Pr ease with the 1906 SanFrancisco earthquake (bekore the conflagration spread),1933 Lang Beach earthquake, and 1952 Bakersfieldearthquake, such a panoramic photograph will portray the

78

city as relatively intact. On close inspection, a fewcollapsed and a good many partially damaged buildingscan be seen, and others are damaged internally, but notcollapsed or visibly damaged from the outside.

Aggregate predicted losses -- figures such as tensof billions of dollars of property loss, up to about 10,000fatalities, or a few thousand buildings destroyed orrende I unfit for occupancy -- seem overwhelming. SeeFigure 3 in Chapter 1. Individual odds are much better,however. Most buildings would experience propertydamage up to no more than 25% of their replacement costeven if subjected to very severe shaking. In large scalemedical exams the statistics indicate that mostindividuals are found to be in fair or good health -- theproblem is to single out those few who need treatment.With buildings where their "seismic health" is concerned,the corresponding problem is to identify those few thatwould collapse or be heavily damaged in a futureearthquake.

Figure 23

Aerial Photo of Santa Barbara

VMMIIMMI11

a_

-r

MIL

04

rA

* t

WitilL.14.11A-qur

* *St sr

,

141PM'4'4'9114 11"111111111 I *11 11,3 III/1111 1

. 404111 -CUM"

Lam t411

qt

Photo credit: Security Pacific National Bank photograph collection, Los Angeles Public Library79 1541 '-03

The following brief explanations touch upon some ofthe most prominent categories of seismically weakbuildings in California. To pursue this topic beyond thesgeneralizations, the best advice is to consult a structuralengineer. (See Chapter 4 for a description of types ofengineers.) The following explanations are excerptedfrom "Earthquake: What to Do and Why," by RobertReitherman, California Geology, March 1982.

Old Masonry BuildingsStructures that were built before earthquake code

regulations were adopted (generally pre-1933 in southernCalifornia and pre-1948 in the Bay Area, but with muchlocal variation) are seismically suspect, and the oldermasonry buildings are especially notorious. In addition tohaving unreinforced walls of brick, block, stone, or adobe,which are easily cracked and fragmented and veryhazardous when they fall, the floors and roofs of thesebuildings are typically only loosely connected to the walls.Retrofit measures to strengthen these buildings includethe use of steel hardware to tie the walls to the floor orroof and the addition of an interior or exterior layer ofsteel framing or reinforced concrete to the masonry wallsto increase their strength. Based on a study by anengineering firm for the Los Angeles building department,the connection retrofit, at an average cost of about $1.50per square foot of building area, is typically much lessexpensive than the strengthening of the entire wall, whichcosts approximately $6 to $12 per square foot.Sometimes only one type of upgrading is required,sometimes both, (Ref. 10).

Tilt-upsThese ubiquitous commercial and industrial buildings

are named for their manner of erection: walls are ofreinforced concrete poured flat on the ground, then tiltedup vertically when hardened. The earthquake problem ofthis construction class lies not with the wall itself butrather with a common connection detail, which is similar

r-th) 80

to the weak way in which floors or roofs of old masonrybuildings are connected to the walls, (even though thetilt-ups with this problem are of much more recentvintage). The addition of steel bolts to connect walls tofloor or roof is generally less expensive than in the caseof brick buildings, and these retrofit connections canprevent the tilt-up from becoming a "tilt-down" duringan earthquake.

House-over-garageIn this category, the weakness is caused by the

overall configuration of the structure, rather than itsconstruction details. When the front of the ground storyof a house or apartment building is left open for parking,the lack of solid walls can create a fatal flaw, which theearthquake will seek out. A steel frame around thegarage openings can be designed to provide sufficienthorizontal strength, but wood posts and beams do nothave significant lateral resistance. In cases wheresufficient side yard clearance exists, however, a solid wall(shear wall) of wood frame construction can be added toform a buttress.

Other problems concerning the o all shape of abuilding and the location of its internal structure includethe soft story (a weak ground story, compared with upperstories, because of greater height or fewer walls orcolumns at the entry level), L-shaped and other complex-plan buildings, and buildings with an imbalance in thelocation of solid walls (Ref. 11)

Mobile homesWhik the wooden box constituting the structure of a

mobile homo is earthquake resistant, the typical methodof mounting the mobile home at its site makes this typeof construction especially earthquake vulnerable. Mobilehomes are damaged about twice as much in earthquakesas ordinary wood frame houses (Ref. 12).

rl)

The solution, in engineering terms, is quite simple,sad a lumber of braced famdation support designe areavailable that eon be used for an existing mobile home.In political terms, however, the solution to the problemhas been much more difficult, because mobile homestandards are separate from the building code. Bedauseof the way in which mobile homes behave in earthquakes

by falling off their jacks the way an auto raised up onblocks would topple over if shaken -- gas lines oftenbreak, and the fire hazard is higher as well.

Non-dnetile Reinforced Concrete Frame BuildingsIn this type of construction, there are no load-

bearing walls and the columns and beams (the frame) holdup the structure and resist horizontal earthquake fovea.Unfortunately, a number of buildings constructed fromthe fifties up to the mid-seventies, when the buildingcode caught up with the problem, are now known to havearrangements of reinforcing bars that produce brittle,rather than ductile, or tough, performance. Instead ofmerely being permanently bent out of shape orexperiencing controlled cracking, these non-ductileconcrete frames can come apart and collapse whenoverstressed by an earthquake, as happened to fourapartment buildings of 10-story height in the 1967Caracas, Venezuela earthquake. The solution to thisdefect is almost never easy, and involves the constructionof new solid walls (shear walls) sufficient to withstandthe total forces, which makes the frame's strength moot,or the strengthening of columns1 beams, and jointsthroughout the structtre.

Pre-east Concrete Buildings with Pre-existing DisteensA pre-east building I. composed partially of

reinforced concrete or prestressed concrete beams,planks, or columns that were poured and fabricated at afactory and then shipped to the site and erected. aein-

01

forced concrete is reinforced with steel bars withdeformations or a knobby texture to increase theirbonding with the concrete; prestressed concrete's steel isin the form of cables which are tensed or stressed insidethe one:eta. Plain or unreinforced concrete has nomajor uses in construction because without steel it is tooweak.

Many pre-east buildings are adequately earthquakeresistant. "Pre-existing distress" is added to thesubheading above to tingle out the structure which isprobably visibly cracking becauae of incompatibleshrinking in the size of its different portions.

Another possible weakness is the sometimes brittleway in which the pieces that were trucked to the site areconnected together after being lifted into place by acrane.

Pre-cast building failures were conspicuous inAnchorage in the 1964 Alaska earthquake.

158

8. References

1. Karl V. Steinbrugge and Eugene E. Schader,"Earthquake Damage and Related Statistics," inLeonard Murphy, ed., San Fernando, CaliforniaEarthquake of February 9, 1971 (National Ocenicand Atmospheric Administration, 1973), vol. IA. p.709-710, and p. 713.

2. John A. Blume & Associates, "Holiday Inn Report,"in Leonard Murphy, ed., San Fernando, CaliforniaEarthquake of February 9, 1971 (National Oceanicand Atmospheric Adminstration, 1973) vol. IA, p.366.

3. Glen Berg and Henry Degenkolb, "EngineeringLessons from the Managua Earthquake," in TheManagua, Nicaragua Earthquake, December 23, 1972,(New York: American Iron and Steel Institute,1973).

4. Gary C. Hart and George Stillman, Owner andOccupant Financial Loss in Two Modern High-RiseBuildings Dtwing The 1971 San Fernando Earthquake,School of Engineering and Applied Science,University of California, Los Angeles, 1972.

15 82

5. Henry Spa 11, "Charles F. Richter--An Interview,"Earthquake Information Bulletin, January-February1980, Vol. 12, No. 1.

6. Applied Technology Council, Tentative ProvisionsFor The Development Of Seismic Regulations ForBuildings, National Science Foundation and NationalBureau of Standards, Washington, D.C., 1978.

7. Karl V. Steinbrugge and Donald F. Moran, "AnEngineering Study of the Southern CaliforniaEarthquake of July 21, 1952 and Its Aftershocks,"Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America,Vol. 44, No. 2B (April 1954).

8. Robert A. Huttenback, Policy an Seismic HazardReduction, Office of the Chancellor, University ofCalifornia, Santa Barbara, 1980.

9. William H. Steinmetz, "How A Campus Handles AnEarthquake Disaster," 26th National Conference onCampus Safety, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor,1979.

1 G 0

10. Wheeler and Gray, Consulting Engineers, "Cost StudyPrepared for Structural Strengthening UsingProposed Division 68 Standards," Los AngelesDepartment of Building and Safety, May 1980.

11. Christopher Arnold and Robert Reitherman, BuildingConfiguration and Seismic Design: The Architec-ture of Earthquake Resistance, John Wiley and Soa9,New York, 1982.

12. K.V. Steinbrugge, "Earthquake damage to mobilehomes in California," California Geo lac, v.33, no.10, 1980.

HU

83

9. Annotated Bibliography

This brief bibliography can direct the individual whorequires more detailed information to other bibliogra-phies, such as those contained in references 5, 7, and 14,and thus this list is not meant to be comprehensive.Almost all of these published works or other papers onthis subject are technical in nature, which we,. why thisbooklet was intended to fill the gap for the non-engineering-oriented audience, but the following isprovided for the architect or engineer who may refer tothis booklet. In the opinion of the author, architects orengineers attempting to competently provide in-depthservices with regard to the seismic design and analysis ofnonstructural items should make themselves familiar withmost of the following references.

1. Army, Navy, and Air Force, Departments Of,Seismic Design For Buildings, Washington, D.C.,Superintendent of Documents, 1982.

Commentary and calculation examples are provided;see especially Chapter 11. Generally parallels the UBC,

but written as a design aid rather than a code. Portionsof the book were written by S.B. Barnes and Associates,and John A. Blume and Associates (now URS/BlumeEngineers), which are Los Angeles and San Franciscostructural engineering firms respectively.

2. Ayres, J.M., T.Y. Sun, and F.R. Brown,"Nonstructural Damage to Buildings," The GreatAlaska Earthquake of 1964: Engineering, NationalAcademy of Sciences, Washington, D.C., 1973.

3. Ayres, J.M., and T.Y. Sun, "Nonstructural Damage,"The San Fernando, California Earthquake ofFebruary 9, 1971, National Oceanic and AtmosphericAdministration, Washington, D.C., 1973.

These are the first two comprehensive post-earthquake damage analyses devoted to the topic ofnonstructural components. The authors are mechanicalengineers.

84 163

4. Dowrick, D.J., Earthquake Resistant Design: AMama! for Engineers and Architects, John Wiley &Sons, New York, NY, 1977.

A comprehensive text, with two chapters("Earthquake Resistance of Services" on mechanical-electrical components, and "Architectural Detailing forEarthquake Resistance,") directly relevant. Dowrick is asenior engineer with Ove Arup Partners, a Britishengineering firm engaged in worldwide consulting, andthus his book has an international perspective withreferences to many different codes.

5. Holmes, William T., "Nonstructural Components,"EERI Seminar Proceedings: PIX'EM: Identifi-cation and Correction of Deficiencies in theEarthquake Resistance of Existing Buildings,Earthquake Engineering Research Institute, (EERI),Berkeley, CA, 1982.

This lecture outline contains a completebibliography and comprehensively itemizes the subtopicswithin the subject of nonstructural earthquake protection.Holmes is a structural engineer with Rutherford andChekene, a San Francisco civil and structural engineeringfirm, which has been involved with existing buildingnonstructural retrofits and new construction designs,especially with hospitals. The Earthquake EngineeringResearch Institute is a multi-disciplinary professionalassociation, which publishes an extensive newsletter-magazine and post-earthquake damage reports.

6. International Conference of Building Officials,Uniform Building Code (especially the "EarthquakeRegulations" of Chapter 23), and Uniform BuildingCode Standards (No. 27-11, Steel Storage Racks,and No. 47-18, Metal Suspension Systems for Acous-

164 es

tical Tile and for Lay-In Panel Ceilings), Whittier,CA, 1982.

New editions of the Code and Standards are issuedevery three years. The rationale behind the earthquakeregulations (which is as important as the specificregulations themselves) is contained in the booklet by theStructural Engineers Association of California listed below(Ref. 12). The International Conference of BuildingOfficials is a non-profit model code organization.

7. Mc Gavin, Gary L., Earthquake Protection ofEssential Building Equipment: Design, Engineering,Installation, John Wiley & Sons, New York, NY,1981.

A book-length treatment of the subject. Especiallyappropriate for large, complex projects such as hospitalsor power plants. Mc Gavin is an architect with Ruhnau-Evans-Ruhnau Associates, a Riverside, California,architecture and planning firm.

8. Office of the State Architect, Structural SafetySection, Interpretation of Regulations tIR 23-7,Title 24 California Administrative Code: Anchor-age of Non-Structural Building Components andHospital Equipment, in development, Sacramento,CA, 1983.

The regulations legally pertain only to essentialnonstructural items in California hospitals, but theregulations can provide a guide as to anchorageengineering of especially essential items for other typesof buildings. The Office of the State Architect has beencentrally involved in earthquake code regulations sincethe 1933 Long Beach earthquake.

/65

9, Schiff, Anshel J., Natures of Earthquake Damage toPower Systems and Cost-Effective Methods toReduce Seismic Failures of Electric PowerEquipment, Purdue Research Foundation, WestLafayette, IN, 1980.

This is one of the few works in this subject areathat is readable by the non-technical audience.Engineering appendix and bibliography also included.Schiff is a mechanical engineering professor at PurdueUniversity.

10. Sheet Metal Industry Fund of Los Angeles andPlumbing Piping Industry Council, Ine., GuidelinesFoe Seismic Restraints of Mechanical Systems andPlumbing Piping Systems, Los Angeles, 1982.

These typical working drawing details for theanchorage of ducts, pipes, and mechanical equipment arewritten to comply with the State's seismic regulationsregarding hospitals, rather than the Uniform BuildingCode's provisions for ordinary buildings, and thus theymeet high reliability and force level standards. TheSheet Metal Industry Fund of Los Angeles is associatedwith the Sheet Metal & Ai: Conditioning Contractors'National Association, Inc. The booklet was prepared byHillman, Biddison and Loevenguth, Los Angeles structuralengineers.

11. Karl V. Steinbrugge, Scenarios For EarthquakeRelated Problems At Computer Installations Used ByFinancial Institutions, Task Force on EarthquakePreparedness, California Seismic Safety Commission,Sacramento, CA, September 1982.

G 6

86

This paper discusses the generel vulnerability of theCalifornia financial industry's computer facilities,provides factora for estimating earthquake damage andcomputer service outages, and discusses the major sourcesof damage and sensitivity to other service outages.Steinbrugge is a structural engineer, first chairman of theCalifornia Seismic Safety Commission, and a frequent on-site observer and analyst of the effects of damagingearthquakes.

12. Structural Engineers Association of California,Recommended Lateral Force Requirements andCommentary, San Francisco, 1980.

Also known as the Blue Book, the "Requirements"portion of this periodically updated booklet is adoptedinto the Uniform Building Code almost verbatim, whilethe "Commentary" explains the assumptions, limitations,and caveats which must be understood for the regulationsto be used intelligently. The Structural EngineersAssociation of California has been active in thedevelopment of seismic code regulations, standards ofpractice, research, and testing for several decades.

13. Veterans Administration, Office of Construction,Study To Establish Seismic ProtecUon Provisions ForFurniture, Equipment & Supplies For VA Hospitals,Washington, D.C., 1976.

This booklet shows typical nonstructural damageinside a hospital, illustrates restraint techniques with costestimates for a variety of types of hospital equipment andfurnishings, and includes a brief engineering appendix.Stone, Marracini, and Patterson, a San Francisco architec-

1 7

tural firm, with the assistance of Rutherford andChekene, a San Francisco civil and structural engineeringfirm, prepared the booklet. Relevant for buildings otherthan hospitals especially if laboratories are present.

14. Yancey, C.W.C., and A.A. Camacho, AseismieDesign of Building Service Systems: The Statethe Art, National Bureau of Standards TechnicalNote 970, Washington, D.C., 1978.

A literature survey and review of present practice,especially with regard to the specific mandatoryregulations of building codes. The National Bureau ofStandards, a federal bureau, has been involved withearthquake research, and post-earthquake damagereports.

168

*U.S. GOVERMENT PRINTING OFFICE 1985 528-221/30679