identification of methods to achieve successful implementation of
TRANSCRIPT
Identification of Methods to Achieve Successful Implementation of Nonstructural and Equipment Seismic Restraints
John Masek, P.E., S.E., VIE Consultants Member EERI Robert Ridge, PhD Brigham Young University February 2009
EARTHQUAKE ENGINEERING RESEARCH INSTITUTE
Identification of Methods to Achieve Successful Implementation of Nonstructural and Equipment Seismic Restraints
Table of Contents Page 1
Table of Contents PageAcknowledgements i 1.0 Executive Summary 1 2.0 Background and Project Objectives 2 3.0 Methodology 5 3.1 Initial Definition of Focus Points Based on Research of Relevant Work by Others 5 3.2 Identification of Key Points to Investigate 5 3.3 Development of an Online Survey Using the Qualtrics Software 7 3.4 Data Gathering via the Internet with Qualtrics Software 7 3.4.1 Endorsement of Professional Organizations 7 3.4.2 Direct email Contacts to Individuals or Companies 7 3.4.3 Responses from Electronic Survey 8 3.5 Supplemental Data Gathering via Telephone Interviews 8 3.6 Data Gathering Confidentiality 8 4.0 Summary and Analysis of Electronic Survey Results 8 4.1 Overall Results, All Survey Groups 9 4.2 Structural Engineers 21 4.3 Building Code Officials 24 4.4 Architects 27 4.5 Contractors 29 4.6 Mechanical and Electrical Engineers 30 5.0 Summary and Analysis of Input and Specific Written and Verbal Information 30 6.0 Conclusions and High Priority Recommendations to Achieve Successful Implementation of Nonstructural Seismic Requirements
32
6.1 Educational Factors 33 6.2 Factors Related to Definition of Design Responsibility 34 6.3 Modification of the Financial Structure of Design Fees and Construction Bidding to Specifically Itemize Nonstructural Design and Construction Work
35
6.4 Modification or Adaptation of Existing Plan Review and Building Inspection Processes
36
6.5 Creation of Incentives for Compliance 38 6.6 Simplification of Current Code Provisions 38 6.7 Other Solutions 38 7.0 Recommendations for Further Research
39
Identification of Methods to Achieve Successful Implementation of Nonstructural and Equipment Seismic Restraints
Table of Contents Page 2
Table of Contents PageAppendix A Complete Qualtrics Report from Electronic Survey A-1 Appendix B Structural Engineers Electronic Survey B-1 Appendix C Building Code Officials Electronic Survey C-1 Appendix D Architects Electronic Survey D-1 Appendix E Contractor Electronic Survey E-1 Appendix F MEP Engineers Electronic Survey F-1 Appendix G Civil Engineers Electronic Survey G-1 Appendix H Facility Managers Electronic Survey H-1 Appendix I Catalog of Verbal Responses from Telephone Interviews I-1 Appendix J References J-1
Identification of Methods to Achieve Successful Implementation of Nonstructural and Equipment Seismic Restraints
i
Acknowledgements The authors wish to express their appreciation to the Earthquake Engineering Research Institute (EERI) for their support and funding of this project. In particular, the authors wish to thank Marjorie Greene and the members of the Special Projects Initiatives review panel for their support. The authors wish to also thank Brigham Young University staff for their support and use of their facilities for project meetings. The authors further recognize the important role the Qualtrics Company had in this project, especially for Dan Watkins’s expertise in adaptation of the Qualtrics software to the needs of this project. The authors acknowledge and appreciate the many professional organizations that supported this project through posting of survey contact information on their organization’s websites or in their e-newsletters. These organizations included EERI, the American Society of Civil Engineers/ Structural Engineering Institute, the American Institute of Architects, the American Society of Mechanical Engineers, the Building Owners and Managers Association, the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, the International Code Council, the Structural Engineers Association of California, and the Structural Engineers Association of Utah. Finally, we wish to thank the hundreds of professionals from the design and construction industry who participated in this project by sharing their experience and knowledge through their survey responses and helpful suggestions.
Identification of Methods to Achieve Successful Implementation of Nonstructural and Equipment Seismic Restraints
Page 1
1.0) Executive Summary The purpose of this research was to identify methods to bring about the proper design and construction of nonstructural and equipment seismic restraints as a matter of standard practice. To accomplish this objective, an in-depth study was done to identify the primary inhibiting and enabling factors affecting nonstructural seismic design and construction practices. Factors which were addressed included perceptions of current compliance with existing codes and standards; why compliance was lower than required by building codes; and who should be responsible for nonstructural seismic design and construction. The researchers also investigated economic factors, including identifying enabling factors, such as how to bring about the proper budgeting of nonstructural seismic work. Interdisciplinary communication gaps and resulting procedural problems among the owner, design team, code enforcement groups and the construction team were explored. By “implementation of nonstructural seismic restraints,” the authors are referring to all aspects of nonstructural seismic design and construction, including force-related requirements, deflection-related requirements, detailing provisions, construction practices, and inspection requirements in modern building codes and design standards. Over a period of 12 months, the authors conducted telephone interviews, in-person interviews, and gathered data using an online technical survey tool. These data-gathering efforts were done across the common disciplines that are involved in developing a building or facility project: including owners, designers, code enforcement professionals, equipment suppliers, contractors and others (collectively referred to as target respondent groups). These data were analyzed and considered in light of prior research by industry groups, government organizations, and other individuals who have studied this topic. Given the variability of professions, geographic regions, and types of projects from which these data were gathered, the consistency in the conclusions and recommendations was remarkable. There was consistent agreement that the current state of the practice for nonstructural seismic design and construction was not adequate, with agreement that noncompliance with current building codes occurred frequently. With this in mind, implementation of the recommendations given in this report is likely to have measurable and significant positive effects. Using data gathered from the target respondent groups, the authors identified 34 primary causative and corrective factors, which can be simplified into four categories: 1) educational factors; 2) factors related to definition of design responsibility; 3) factors related to plan review and building inspection processes; and 4) economic factors relating to design fees and construction costs. Survey respondents consistently emphasized the need for increased education across all groups: owners, designers, contractors, code enforcement professionals, and others, as well as the need to clearly define who is responsible for nonstructural seismic design. Stricter code enforcement, which was also recommended by
Identification of Methods to Achieve Successful Implementation of Nonstructural and Equipment Seismic Restraints
Page 2
several respondent groups, would be more effective if done concurrently with improved education.
The authors invite readers to analyze the substantial amount of data provided in this report and implement the recommendations that would be most effective in their communities, companies or professional groups. 2.0 Background and Project Objectives
Earthquake risk management and mitigation for nonstructural components of buildings and facilities have progressed significantly through developing better building codes, design guidelines and standards in the International Building Code (IBC), American Society of Civil Engineers/Structural Engineering Institute (ASCE/SEI) documents, and Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) design guides. At the onset of this research project, the authors proposed the possibility that many modern structures may have been constructed with little or inadequate attention given to proper seismic restraints of nonstructural items. Therefore, measurement of building code implementation success for nonstructural seismic requirements was one objective of this study. This was accomplished by surveying a wide group of people involved in the total design and construction process, from project conception to final completion. The primary issue addressed in this research was not further improvement in design standards, but rather how to achieve correct implementation of existing standards.
More than just quantifying the general extent to which noncompliance with nonstructural seismic requirements may exist, this study emphasized identification of possible causes for the deficiencies in nonstructural and equipment seismic restraint design and construction. Considerable attention has been given the topic of code enforcement and methods to document and enhance enforcement. However, the authors believed at the onset of research that this issue is more complex than heightened code enforcement. The authors also hypothesized that one cause is the problem of continuous delegation of responsibility to the point where, in the end, no one accepts responsibility or budgets for this important aspect of seismic design and construction. This type of behavior, known as diffusion of responsibility in the social science literature (Bickman, L., 1972), was postulated to be an important factor. Other root causes that have resulted in sporadic implementation of nonstructural seismic design standards, or none at all, have been explored.
In seeking solutions that are likely to have a positive impact on achieving correct implementation of nonstructural seismic design measures, it is important to recognize the fact that building or facility design and construction is a team endeavor. This team includes a variety of participants, with widely varied training and interests. These groups include the owner, architects, structural
Identification of Methods to Achieve Successful Implementation of Nonstructural and Equipment Seismic Restraints
Page 3
engineers, material suppliers, fabricators, erectors, subcontractors, and so forth. One aspect of the construction process that affects safety is that each project is a singular activity. That is to say, each construction project is unique in a myriad of ways. Therefore, the construction team may work together only once on a particular project and may work relatively independently of each other (Moses, 1998).
What factors may contribute to the lack of compliance with required building codes? Others have proposed that the highly fragmented construction process itself is a source of the problem (Moses, 1998). Especially prevalent when the construction is rushed and highly stressed, there may be a lack of complete communication between engineers, fabricators, and contractors. This lack of communication may contribute to a failure by one group to incorporate the plans of another group into the design or to report changes in the design to responsible parties.
Other factors related to these aforementioned concepts merit empirical attention. For example, it is a well-known principle in psychology that people’s perceived responsibility for engaging in any behavior is diluted to the extent that others are perceived to have some responsibility for acting. In other words, the more people there are who could engage in an action, the less responsible any one of them will feel for engaging in that action. This is another variant of diffusion of responsibility (Latané & Darley, 1970). In the realm of building construction, this principle refers to the idea that any of the construction team members may feel that it is the responsibility of other team members to ensure that nonstructural and equipment seismic restraints are installed; i.e., it’s not their job. To the extent that this perception is pervasive among group members, a process of “passing the buck” or continuous delegation may contribute to a lack of compliance with relevant codes. Another factor may be the perceived inconvenience in complying with the codes. An inconvenience that has received considerable empirical attention in research on individual household preparedness for earthquakes is cost (Kunreuther et al., 1978). The typical cost investigated has been earthquake insurance, and the research has shown that the high cost of insurance has had a detrimental effect on purchasing behavior (Palm et al., 1990; Sullivan et al., 1977). To the extent that the effects of cost on insurance purchase can be generalized to other mitigation strategies, it may be the case that failure to install nonstructural and equipment seismic restraints in buildings is due to the cost.
Cost is one of many possible implementation barriers to the adoption of hazard mitigation strategies. In addition, builders may be confronted with excessive time requirements involved in making seismic adjustments, the need to overcome physical implementation barriers, and a daunting amount of cooperation required from other people. Anderson (2000) found that such barriers are correlated with the failure to engage in household earthquake mitigation strategies.
Identification of Methods to Achieve Successful Implementation of Nonstructural and Equipment Seismic Restraints
Page 4
The extent that those involved in the building process perceive such barriers to be present may make it less likely that they will comply with seismic safety codes.
Other evidence in the psychological literature suggests that people are profoundly affected by what they perceive other people to be doing. In other words, normative information influences individual behavior. Normative information refers to the perception that others are or aren’t involved in a particular activity. For example, research has found that providing normative information indicating that everyone else is using less electricity has resulted in a reduction of individual electricity consumption by individual homeowners (Pallak, Cook, & Sullivan, 1980). Therefore, to the extent that members of the building team for a project believe that others are not complying with seismic safety codes, it can be expected there may be less conformance to nonstructural and equipment seismic design and construction requirements by other project team members as well.
To summarize, a variety of factors may contribute to the failure to incorporate nonstructural and equipment seismic restraints in completed buildings. These factors include a lack of communication between construction team members (Moses, 1998), diffusion of responsibility (Latané & Darley, 1970), cost (Kunreuther et al., 1978), other implementation barriers (Anderson, 2000), and normative beliefs (Donaldson, 1994, 1994). Other factors have also been identified in this research project and are summarized in this report. The presence and potential influence of these factors on decisions about whether or not to comply with seismic safety codes during the construction of buildings has not been adequately addressed in the literature. Such an investigation is both necessary and important.
The authors have intentionally avoided any detailed review or investigation of possible technical changes to building code requirements for nonstructural seismic design. A large amount of literature is available on this subject. The only aspect of this topic that was investigated was to query participants in the study as to their belief that the ambiguity or complexity of current code requirements was an implementation barrier. Related to this, the participants were queried as to their level knowledge of various current building codes and design standards.
The authors have deliberately not addressed the voluminous amount of data that clearly illustrates that nonstructural equipment damage does occur in earthquakes. The fact that nonstructural damage has consistently resulted in a significant portion of overall facility damage and interruption time is taken as a given, and is beyond the scope of this research project. Reference is made to earthquake damage investigations by the Earthquake Engineering Research Institute (EERI), the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), and others.
Identification of Methods to Achieve Successful Implementation of Nonstructural and Equipment Seismic Restraints
Page 5
3.0 Methodology
This research project includes findings from 301 practicing professionals in the “target groups” identified for study. The distribution of all survey respondents (organized by discipline and by survey method) is provided in Figure 3.1. Rather than focus on a single group with preconceived responsibility for certain aspects of nonstructural seismic design, the authors gathered data from a diverse group, with varying project responsibilities (in which respondents were allowed to self define what they thought their role was or should be). This diverse group of individuals was then surveyed to determine their thoughts on the current state of the practice for nonstructural seismic design. Surveys were conducted via telephone interviews, online electronic surveying, and several in-person interviews. Data from three states (California, Utah, and Washington) was targeted, although some respondents from other states and other countries also chose to respond. The survey focused on the following categories of professions or “target groups”: structural engineers, code enforcement professionals, architects, mechanical and electrical engineers, construction industry professionals, specialty contractors, equipment suppliers, developers, facility managers, facility owners, and grant reviewers at the state and federal levels. In addition, some survey respondents associated themselves with other groups, such as university professors, planners, permit counter managers, and others.
3.1 Initial Definition of Focus Points Based on Research of Relevant Work by Others
In order to establish important parameters to be included in the project, background information was gathered from recent related research by others, including ATC (2008), Hess (2008), and Petak (2008). These investigations found that certain factors emerged as clearly important, notably: the lack of clear definition of nonstructural design responsibility and the need for further education across all groups involved in building or facility design. The need for stronger enforcement has been suggested as a component, but not the complete answer to this issue.
3.2 Identification of Key Points to Investigate
Initially, 22 people known to the authors were interviewed by telephone or in person to identify primary topics to be included in the formal survey. The purpose of these inquires was to determine key factors to include in the electronic survey. This interaction led to development of the electronic survey using a software program known as Qualtrics (Qualtrics, 2008). This interaction also led to identification of possible methods to improve the state of the practice, which could then be ranked for their effectiveness by survey respondents.
Identification of Methods to Achieve Successful Implementation of Nonstructural and Equipment Seismic Restraints
Page 6
Figure 3.1: Distribution of Study Participants by Discipline
Totals Answer
Qualtrics Survey
Response
Qualtrics %
Telephone Interviews
Initial Survey
Develop-ment
number %
Facility manager/Owners/ Developers 10 5.3% 27 37 12.3
Architect 15 7.9% 10 25 8.3 Structural engineer 61 32.3% 8 69 22.9 Civil engineer 13 7.0% 13 4.3
Mechanical or Electrical engineer 6 3.2%
10
16 5.3
General contractor/ Subcontractors 10 5.3% 10 20 6.6
Equipment manufacturer 5 2.6% 10 15 5.0 Supplier or installer of specialty seismic bracing devices
1 0.5% 6 7 2.3
Building inspector/Plan reviewers/Building officials
36* 19.0% 7 43 14.3
University professor 2 1% 2 0.7 Other (In design/ construction industry, but not directly one of the above categories)
30* 15.9%
2
32 10.7
Others, during survey development 22 22 7.3
Totals 189 100% 90 22 301** 100% *16 of those who identified themselves as “other” were building code officials.
Identification of Methods to Achieve Successful Implementation of Nonstructural and Equipment Seismic Restraints
Page 7
3.3 Development of an Online Survey Using the Qualtrics Software
The online survey developed by the authors first asked respondents to provide descriptive information regarding their profession (including number of years practiced), education, state of residence, primary state where business is conducted, the type of structures with which they have experience, and personal exposure to earthquakes. They were then asked to indicate their familiarity with codes, design guidelines, and/or standards that govern the installation of nonstructural and equipment seismic restraints in buildings. They were also asked to explain the penalties for noncompliance with these standards.
In the next section of the survey, respondents were asked about their attitudes and opinions about nonstructural seismic safety standards, as well as their perceptions of others’ attitudes and opinions. They were then asked to provide their opinions as to who bears responsibility for compliance with these standards. Included in this section were questions regarding perceived compliance with the standards, such as how frequently or infrequently they are complied with. They also identified reasons why compliance has occurred in past construction projects, why noncompliance has occurred, and what might be done to increase compliance in the future (i.e., potential solutions). When possible, respondents from specific professions were directed to questions that asked about issues related to those professions. This enabled gathering of information from subsets within the sample.
3.4 Data Gathering via the Internet with Qualtrics Software
3.4.1 Endorsement of Professional Organizations
Once the survey was prepared, initial data-gathering efforts were focused on getting endorsements of the survey from professional organizations. These included the American Institute of Architects, the American Society of Mechanical Engineers, the American Society of Civil Engineers/Structural Engineering Institute, the Building Owners and Managers Association, the Earthquake Engineering Research Institute, the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, the International Code Council, the Structural Engineers Association of California, and the Structural Engineers Association of Utah. In addition, several national engineering design firms were helpful in providing input to the study.
3.4.2 Direct email contacts to individuals or companies
The authors supplemented survey exposure to target groups with direct email contacts. More than 2,000 such contacts were made across the target groups.
Identification of Methods to Achieve Successful Implementation of Nonstructural and Equipment Seismic Restraints
Page 8
3.4.3 Responses from Electronic Survey
The Qualtrics survey was conducted online over a period of seven months, and 222 individuals logged onto the survey site in this time frame. Of these, 189 responded to all or a sufficient portion of the survey questions to be usable for analysis. Survey results are given in Appendices A through H. An analysis of these results is provided in Section 4.
3.5 Supplemental Data Gathering via Telephone Interviews
Approximately 200 telephone inquiries were made, from which 90 interested parties that were willing to provide some level of usable input were identified. Inquiries from these brief telephone interviews were documented to supplement data from the survey. Information gathered in this way was intended to clarify conclusions from the electronic survey. No attempt was made to walk through the entire survey over the telephone. Individuals with telephone responses are not known to have also responded to the online survey, although some repetition may have occurred due to the wide publicity given to the survey.
This approach was also used to gather more data from target groups that did not have a large response in the electronic survey. This was necessary as some individuals stated that they were reluctant to complete the survey out of concern that responses could be tracked to them using the http address (which could have been done using Qualtrics, but was not done). Some respondents were also sensitive to the fact that some of the questions directly ask about conformance to building codes and punitive measures for noncompliance. Questions asked in the telephone interviews were less intimidating and generally were answered without concern. Data gathered from telephone interviews is given in Appendix I.
3.6 Data Gathering Confidentiality
The survey offered individuals the opportunity to provide their contact information if they chose to do so for follow up after completion of the project. Otherwise, respondent contact data was not gathered.
4.0 Summary and Analysis of Electronic Survey Results
There was broad agreement regarding which measures would be most effective in improved implementation of nonstructural seismic code provisions.
All groups agreed that there was not a clear definition of which discipline was or should be responsible for nonstructural seismic design. However, this does not mean that these disciplines agreed on which discipline was, or should be, responsible. Therefore, the need to define responsibility is a common recommendation, while defining who is responsible and how to assign this responsibility is an open question. In a similar manner, definition of responsibility for
Identification of Methods to Achieve Successful Implementation of Nonstructural and Equipment Seismic Restraints
Page 9
construction of nonstructural seismic anchorage and bracing was agreed upon as a need, but again, who should be responsible (general contractor, specialty contactor, or equipment supplier) was not agreed upon.
Similarly, there was broad agreement that education was the most likely measure that could lead to increased compliance with nonstructural seismic code requirements. Again, this agreement (on the concept of educational benefit) did not mean agreement existed regarding which group was in the most need of education and why. In fact, some groups (say group A) specifically stated that another group (group B) was poorly informed. However, group B actually rated itself as well informed.
In the view of the authors, these trends confirm the need for education and definition of design and construction responsibility across all groups.
Sections 4.1 through 4.6 provide an in-depth analysis of causative factors of deficiencies in nonstructural seismic design and construction practices, as reported by survey participants. Data were provided across all groups in Section 4.1, and then separated by five of the larger respondent groups in Sections 4.2 through 4.6. The reader is encouraged to study these data and trends, and draw additional supplemental conclusions which could improve the state of the practice.
4.1 Overall Results, All Survey Groups
The survey focused on three states, California, Utah, and Washington, although responses from other states or countries were not excluded. The distribution of responses to the electronic survey is shown in Figure 4.1.1.
Figure 4.1.1 Distribution of Qualtrics Survey Respondents by State # Answer* % 1 California 63% 2 Utah 17% 3 Washington 6% 4 Other 14% Total 100%
* Refer to Appendix A for more information on respondent demographics.
Identification of Methods to Achieve Successful Implementation of Nonstructural and Equipment Seismic Restraints
Page 10
The educational background of respondents was also measured. Typically respondents were highly educated, as shown in Figure 4.1.2.
Figure 4.1.2 Educational Background of Electronic Survey Respondents # Answer % 1 Less than high school 0% 2 High school graduate or equivalent 1%
3 Trade/Technical school graduate (please specify your area of study) 4%
4 Some college 12%
5 College graduate (please specify your major field of study) 41%
6 Post-graduate degree (master's, doctoral, other) (please specify your degree and area of study) 42%
Total 100%
Taken as a group, respondents had experience that spanned most common construction types, as shown in Figure 4.1.3. The survey did not specifically gather data on more specialized structures, such as DOE facilities (e.g. nuclear power plants), which are often subjected to very strict independent oversight.
Figure 4.1.3 Distribution of Design Experience, All Respondent Groups # Answer %* 1 Federal Government buildings 23% 2 Local or State Government buildings 48% 3 Emergency Services, Fire, Police 34% 4 Healthcare 41% 5 Utilities 27% 6 K-12 Schools 30% 7 Universities 35% 8 Office and Commercial 74% 9 Industrial 61% 10 Residential 66% 11 High Occupancy, Convention Centers 28% 12 Others 17%
*Note: respondents could choose multiple categories; therefore totals exceed 100%.
Identification of Methods to Achieve Successful Implementation of Nonstructural and Equipment Seismic Restraints
Page 11
The survey queried respondents concerning their knowledge of common building codes and design standards. The results, shown in Figure 4.1.4, are interesting from several perspectives. Firstly, respondents stated that they had a high degree of familiarity with seismic requirements in the International Building Code, yet a lower degree of familiarity with ASCE 7-05 (ASCE 2006-1). This illustrates overconfidence on the part of many respondents, in that ASCE 7-05 is referenced in the International Building Code (ICC, 2006) for most of the nonstructural seismic design requirements. As expected, building code and design standard familiarity did vary by discipline, and this is analyzed in Appendices B through H. Respondent familiarity with provisions for seismic analysis and retrofit design for existing facilities in ASCE 31-03 (ASCE 2003) and ASCE 41-06 (ASCE 2006-2) was generally low. This is an important finding, in that retrofit design of existing facilities must also include retrofit of nonstructural items to be fully effective. Familiarity with National Fire Protection Association Code (NFPA, 2007) provisions was low across most disciplines. This is also significant, in that seismic design of firewater systems is an important component of overall building or facility safety.
Figure 4.1.4: Respondent Familiarity with Modern Building Codes and Design Standards Percent Responding to Each Level of Familiarity
by Code or Standard
Question: Level of Familiarity With the Listed Codes or Standards
1- Not at all familiar
2- Somewhat
familiar
3- Moderately
familiar
4- Very
Familiar
5- Extremely
familiar
Mean
The International Building Code 4 8 23 48 17 3.6
ASCE 7-05 (Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and Other Structures)
22 14 20 28 16 3.0
ASCE 31-03 (Seismic Evaluation of Existing Buildings)
39 24 19 14 4 2.2
ASCE 41-06 57 19 12 8 4 1.8 NFPA 52 28 10 9 1 1.8
Identification of Methods to Achieve Successful Implementation of Nonstructural and Equipment Seismic Restraints
Page 12
Related to code and design standard familiarity, respondents were also asked if they knew of Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA 2004-1, 2004-2, 2007) guidelines that could be used as a basis for nonstructural risk assessment or retrofit needs assessment. The results, which were fairly consistent across all disciplines, showed a lack of familiarity with existing FEMA design guides. This finding, also shown in Figure 4.1.5, confirms one of the primary study findings: Better education about nonstructural design requirements (and available resources to meet those requirements) is needed.
Figure 4.1.5: Familiarity with FEMA Nonstructural Design Guides # Answer %
1 Yes 33%
2 No 67% Total 100%
The level of importance of nonstructural seismic design requirements to respondents was measured. As the trend diagram in Figure 4.1.6 indicates, most respondents considered nonstructural seismic retrofit to be very important. However, this conclusion should be qualified, in that those who choose to take the time to respond to the electronic survey (and for that matter the telephone interviews outlined in Appendix I) would be expected to have a higher level of interest in this topic. Discovering the level of knowledge of the larger group of individuals who were contacted, but choose not to respond (or stated in verbal interviews that the topic of nonstructural seismic bracing was not important to them) is a subject for further research. However, even without such research being done, it is reasonable to suggest that the results of this study may overstate the level of knowledge and the level of interest in the target groups at large. This conclusion was consistent with the thinking of respondents also. Figure 4.1.7 illustrates the level of importance respondents thought that their peers had for this subject. Another explanation for this trend exists in published research in psychology, showing that people tend to overestimate the uniqueness of their good or desirable attitudes and opinions, while underestimating those of others (Goethals, Messick, & Allison, 1991). This may also be a contributing factor to why respondents tended to believe that nonstructural seismic design safety was more important to them than it was to others.
Identification of Methods to Achieve Successful Implementation of Nonstructural and Equipment Seismic Restraints
Page 13
Figure 4.1.6: Stated Importance of Nonstructural Design and Construction, All Groups
Figure 4.1.7: The Level of Interest Respondents Thought Their Peers Placed on Nonstructural Seismic Design and Construction Implementation
It has been reported (Petak, 2008) that one possible cause for inadequate implementation of existing nonstructural seismic design standards is that the project team members (from owner to designers to contractors) are not certain (or even have conflicting views of) who is responsible for this work. The survey asked respondents to rank order who was responsible for being familiar with nonstructural seismic safety standards by profession. While Figure 4.1.8 trends towards architects and structural engineers, and to a lesser degree mechanical and electrical engineers, no clear concurrence exists.
Identification of Methods to Achieve Successful Implementation of Nonstructural and Equipment Seismic Restraints
Page 14
Figure 4.1.8 Ranking of Relative Responsibility for Nonstructural Seismic Safety by Group Cumulative Ranking of Relative Responsibility for Nonstructural Seismic Safety as Ranked by All Respondent Groups
Group Providing Ranking Opinions Trend Diagram Illustrating Summary of Responsibility Ranking
1 Architect
2 Structural engineer
3 Civil engineer
4 Mechanical engineer
5 Electrical engineer
6 General contractor
7 Building subcontractor
8 Equipment manufacturer
9 Equipment supplier
10
Supplier or installer of specialty seismic bracing devices
11 Building inspector
12 Building plan reviewer
13 Construction project manager
14 Overall design project manager
15 Other, please specify*
*Respondents were asked if anyone other than those listed was responsible. See Appendix A.
Identification of Methods to Achieve Successful Implementation of Nonstructural and Equipment Seismic Restraints
Page 15
A similar, but slightly different, question was asked: Who has the ultimate responsibility for implementation of seismic safety provisions. In this case, there was also no concurrence, but three groups — building inspectors, architects, and structural engineers — were thought to have the ultimate responsibility. These results, measured against the perceived responsibility by the three groups designated, are interesting. This is especially true in the case of building inspectors, who almost universally believed that the ultimate responsibility resided with either the architect or the structural engineer, but not plan reviewers or building inspectors. In other words, others (especially contractors) believed building inspectors are ultimately responsible, but these same building inspectors did not agree! The authors suggest that building inspectors do not and should not have the ultimate responsibility for this work. The important point, though, is that many respondents believe that they are ultimately responsible. Figure 4.1.9 Respondent Ranking of the Ultimate Responsibility for Nonstructural Seismic Safety # Answer %
1 Architect 22%
2 Structural engineer 18%
3 Civil engineer 2%
4 Mechanical engineer 1%
5 Electrical engineer 0%
6 General contractor 5%
7 Building subcontractor 1%
8 Equipment manufacturer 0%
9 Equipment supplier 1%
10 Supplier or installer of specialty seismic bracing devices
2%
11 Building inspector 27%
12 Building plan reviewer 1%
13 Construction project manager 4%
14 Overall design project manager 7%
15 Other 8%
Total 100%
Identification of Methods to Achieve Successful Implementation of Nonstructural and Equipment Seismic Restraints
Page 16
Given the confusion about who is ultimately responsible for seismic safety of nonstructural items, it would not be surprising to find that this work is not always done, or if done, is done incorrectly.
The trend diagram in Figure 4.1.10 is somewhat surprising in its negative view of the as-built condition of modern buildings or modern retrofit projects.
Figure 4.1.10 Trend Diagram for the Frequency of Compliance with Nonstructural Seismic Safety Provisions
Identification of Methods to Achieve Successful Implementation of Nonstructural and Equipment Seismic Restraints
Page 17
Given, therefore, that noncompliance with existing seismic safety provisions is a concern of significance, inquiries were made of respondents as to why this was the case. The results of these inquires are summarized in Figure 4.1.11.
Figure 4.1.11 Reasons for Noncompliance and Their Relative Importance; Summary from All Respondent Groups
Answer % No one is adequately trained to make sure the standards are complied with. 44%
There is little regulatory enforcement of compliance with the standards. 42%
No one knows who is ultimately responsible for compliance. 40% There is a communication breakdown between everyone involved in constructing the building that contributes to noncompliance.
35%
It is too expensive to comply with the standards. 35% Compliance just falls through the cracks. 33% Everyone just assumes someone else will make sure that compliance occurs. 31%
Everyone passes the buck to someone else, so compliance doesn't occur. 26%
The standards are too difficult to understand. 25% There is little incentive to comply with the standards. 23% Penalties for noncompliance aren't severe enough to make compliance a high priority. 20%
It is too time consuming to comply with these standards. 17% There is a lack of compensation for oversight compliance. 15% The likelihood of a damaging earthquake in this area is too low to justify complying with the standards. 13%
The standards are poorly designed. 12% No one is really interested in making sure the standards are complied with. 11%
It's not against the law to fail to comply with the standards; compliance will happen when it's the law. 11%
No one is qualified to certify compliance. 9% The likely consequences of an earthquake in my area are too minimal to justify the cost and effort of compliance. 8%
I have never seen compliance. 3% There are liability concerns that prevent compliance. 2%
(Note: Respondents can select and rank more than one choice.)
Identification of Methods to Achieve Successful Implementation of Nonstructural and Equipment Seismic Restraints
Page 18
The respondents were then asked to identify and rank possible solutions to the problems that are impeding successful implementation of existing nonstructural seismic design standards. These recommendations and their relative importance are given in Figure 4.1.12.
Figure 4.1.12 Recommendations for Bringing About Successful Implementation of Nonstructural Seismic Design Provisions; Summary from All Respondent Groups Answer %
Better education of design professionals could lead to good design and construction practices. 81%
Better education of contractors and equipment suppliers could lead to good design and construction practices.
71%
Better education of owners could lead to good design and construction practices. 57%
Stricter building code enforcement could lead to good design and construction practices. 48%
Better public education of hazards posed by nonstructural items in an earthquake could lead to good design and construction practices.
47%
New technical provisions in the building codes; i.e., improvement in the technical requirements, could lead to good design and construction practices.
45%
Financial incentives, such as reduced insurance costs, could lead to good design and construction practices. 40%
Better internal quality control by design professionals could lead to good design and construction practices. 39%
Design fees specifically allocated to this work could lead to good design and construction practices. 37%
Fairer enforcement of standards across all projects could lead to good design and construction practices. 22%
Punishment of design professionals and contractors or others associated with noncompliant buildings or facilities could lead to good design and construction practices.
20%
The creation of a new system, with specific professional licensing requirements for this type of work, could lead to good design and construction practices.
18%
More federal grants for mitigation of nonstructural hazards during remodels could lead to good design and construction practices.
11%
(Note: Respondents can select and rank more than one choice.)
Identification of Methods to Achieve Successful Implementation of Nonstructural and Equipment Seismic Restraints
Page 19
Related to these recommendations, survey respondents agreed that a very clear definition of which party in the design and construction team is responsible for implementation of nonstructural seismic design provisions is needed. As shown in Figure 4.1.14, this factor was rated as having a medium or high likelihood of being an important provision that would lead to success by most respondents. Other factors that most respondents rated as having a medium or high success potential were (1) providing more detailed design standards, (2) requiring equipment suppliers to design and install nonstructural seismic anchorage and bracing for their equipment, and (3) stricter enforcement of current standards (Figures 4.1.15 and 4.1.16) .
Figure 4.1.14 Effectiveness of Clearly Defining Who is Responsible for Compliance with Seismic Design Requirements for Nonstructural Items 52% 44% 4%
High Medium Low
Related to increased education, respondents strongly agreed that more detailed design standards would be very helpful in increasing compliance with current seismic design provisions. When queried further through supplemental telephone interviews, this suggestion was clarified. The “detailed provisions” requested refer to technical documents similar to the Sheet Metal and Air Conditioning Contractor’s National Association Provisions (SMACNA, 2000), with detailed engineering drawings, design load tables, etc. As discussed in Section 4, most respondents were unaware of FEMA documents such as FEMA 412, FEMA 413, and FEMA 414 (FEMA 2004-1, 2004-2, 2005). Those who were aware of these documents often felt they were too general and that more specificity was needed.
Identification of Methods to Achieve Successful Implementation of Nonstructural and Equipment Seismic Restraints
Page 20
Figure 4.1.15 Effectiveness of Providing Detailed Design Standards to Assist in the Process of Complying with Nonstructural Seismic Design Provisions. 49% 41% 10%
High Medium Low
Figure 4.1.16 Effectiveness of Stricter Enforcement of Current Standards
68% 28 % 4%
High Medium Low
Identification of Methods to Achieve Successful Implementation of Nonstructural and Equipment Seismic Restraints
Page 21
4.2 Structural Engineers
Structural engineers (SEs) were viewed as one of the top three professions that should have the ultimate responsibility for nonstructural seismic design and verification of correct construction. It is therefore instructive to examine what in fact structural engineers believe their role is, and what structural engineers think the issues associated with nonstructural seismic design are, and how they should be addressed. Many respondents stated that the structural engineer is the responsible party for nonstructural seismic design. This view is reinforced in some geographic areas, such as in California, where administrative code requirements require a structural engineer to perform and stamp nonstructural seismic calculations and drawings for critical facilities, such as hospitals. However, interviews with structural engineers and code enforcement professionals confirm that while strict and clear provisions also exist in the building codes for most other (i.e., nonessential) structures, the enforcement of these provisions is not as strict, nor is a structural engineer necessarily engaged to perform the design work for “nonessential” buildings (i.e., an importance factor less than 1.5) (ICC, 2006). As a group, structural engineers felt that compliance with nonstructural seismic design provisions was not uniform. In fact, no structural engineers surveyed felt the provisions were always complied with, either in California or elsewhere (Figure 4.2.1). In addition, nearly half stated they personally knew of buildings constructed in a manner which did not comply with current code provisions (Figure 4.2.2).
Figure 4.2.1 Structural Engineers Estimation of Compliance Frequency # Answer % 1 1- never complied with 2% 2 2- sometimes complied with 53% 3 3- usually complied with 45% 4 4- always complied with 0% Total 100%
Identification of Methods to Achieve Successful Implementation of Nonstructural and Equipment Seismic Restraints
Page 22
Figure 4.2.2 Percent of Structural Engineers Who Were Aware of New Construction Not in Full Compliance with Building Code Provisions for Nonstructural Seismic Anchorage and Bracing
Structural engineers were asked to rank factors that could lead to compliance with current nonstructural seismic design provisions. The results of this query are given in Figure 4.2.3, and do in fact differ somewhat from the results for the respondent group in total. Structural engineers again rank education as a top factor for increasing successful implementation. However, providing adequate design fees for nonstructural seismic design was the second highest factor in the opinion of structural engineers. By inference, it may be stated that many structural engineers do not believe their current fees are adequate for this work and/or that their design contracts do not specifically require them to do this part of the design.
Identification of Methods to Achieve Successful Implementation of Nonstructural and Equipment Seismic Restraints
Page 23
Figure 4.2.3 Structural Engineers’ Ranking of Factors That Would Lead to Successful Nonstructural Seismic Design Implementation
Answer % Better education of design professionals could lead to good design and construction practices. 73%
Design fees specifically allocated to this work could lead to good design and construction practices. 70%
Better education of contractors and equipment suppliers could lead to good design and construction practices.
68%
Stricter building codes enforcement could lead to good design and construction practices. 57%
Better education of owners could lead to good design and construction practices. 57%
Financial incentives, such as reduced insurance costs, could lead to good design and construction practices. 43%
Better public education of hazards posed by nonstructural items in an earthquake could lead to good design and construction practices.
41%
Better internal quality control by design professionals could lead to good design and construction practices. 36%
The creation of a new system, with specific professional licensing requirements for this type of work, could lead to good design and construction practices.
20%
Fairer enforcement of standards across all projects could lead to good design and construction practices. 18%
Punishment of design professionals and contractors or others associated with noncompliant buildings or facilities could lead to good design and construction practices.
18%
More federal grants for mitigation of nonstructural hazards during remodels could lead to good design and construction practices.
7%
Other 7% (Note: Respondents can select and rank more than one choice.)
With regard to education, structural engineers clearly point to the individuals or companies they most commonly have contracts with, i.e., architects and owners, as the parties that would most benefit from additional education concerning nonstructural seismic bracing (Figure 4.2.4).
Identification of Methods to Achieve Successful Implementation of Nonstructural and Equipment Seismic Restraints
Page 24
Figure 4.2.4: Structural Engineers View of Which Groups Most Require Additional Education Concerning Nonstructural Seismic Provision
Answer %
Architect 27%
Owner 27%
Other* 10%
Structural engineer 8%
General contractor 8%
Supplier or installer of specialty seismic bracing devices 8%
Building plan reviewer 4%
Construction project manager 4%
Overall design project manager 4%
Total 100% *See Appendix B for further information.
4.3 Building Code Officials
The only building code officials who responded to the electronic survey were from California. Their responses were obtained through support of the ICC in California. This information was supplemented with the verbal responses in Appendix I. Building code officials from other states did respond to telephone interviews. As shown in Figure 3.1, building code professionals represented the second largest group of respondents. As also shown in Figure 4.3.1, most building code officials believed that nonstructural seismic restraints were important.
Figure 4.3.1 Importance of Nonstructural Seismic Design to Building Code Officials
Identification of Methods to Achieve Successful Implementation of Nonstructural and Equipment Seismic Restraints
Page 25
As documented in Appendix C, building code officials reported very high (90%) familiarity with seismic design standards for nonstructural items and overwhelmingly (88%) believed that nonstructural damage was more likely to occur than building collapse in a moderate earthquake. Building code officials also felt that architects and structural engineers were the primary parties responsible for nonstructural seismic design (Figure 4.3.2). Building code officials felt that the two parties (really the only parties) with sufficient knowledge of nonstructural seismic bracing needs were structural engineers and building code officials (Figure 4.3.3). Furthermore, building code officials reported that the two groups most in need of additional education concerning nonstructural seismic requirements were architects and various other disciplines in the construction industry (Figure 4.3.4). This leads the authors to suggest that the use of generalized seismic bracing requirements in “standard” specifications (which are not designed by a structural engineer) may be an incomplete way to achieve a satisfactory result in the constructed facility. Clearly, building code officials would prefer that the work be designed by structural engineers.
Figure 4.3.2 Rating of Which Design Discipline Should Have Primary Responsibility for Nonstructural Seismic Design by Building Code Officials in California
Answer % Architect 47% Structural engineer 35% Civil engineer 6% General contractor 6% Overall design project manager 6% Total 100%
Figure 4.3.3 Rating of Which Disciplines are the Most Knowledgeable Regarding Nonstructural Seismic Design by Building Code Officials in California
Answer % Structural engineer 35% Building plan reviewer 29% Architect 12% Civil engineer 6% Mechanical engineer 6% Building inspector 6% All Others 6% Total 100%
Identification of Methods to Achieve Successful Implementation of Nonstructural and Equipment Seismic Restraints
Page 26
Figure 4.3.4 Building Code Officials’ Views of Groups That Would Most Benefit from Additional Education Concerning Nonstructural Seismic Bracing Requirements
Answer % Architect 35% General contractor 24% Construction project manager 18% Equipment supplier 11% Civil engineer 6% Equipment manufacturer 6% Total 100%
Building code officials in California had a different view (from the respondent groups as a whole) of the current state of the practice for nonstructural seismic bracing, and also differing views on how to correct any deficiencies that did or did not exist. Specifically, building code officials (from California) believed noncompliance to be rare. This group thought that the two most successful strategies to increase compliance would be to require equipment manufacturers or installers to perform this work (Figure 4.3.5) and to increase enforcement levels. (Refer to Appendix C.) In a somewhat contradictory view, building code officials did not view having a specific bid item for nonstructural seismic bracing work to be very effective.
Figure 4.3.5 Building Code Officials’ Highest Rated Factor to Improve Nonstructural Seismic Bracing; Requiring Equipment Suppliers and Installers to Perform Seismic Bracing Work 75% 17% 8%
High Medium Low
Identification of Methods to Achieve Successful Implementation of Nonstructural and Equipment Seismic Restraints
Page 27
4.4 Architects
An extensive outreach to architects to provide input to this study was made through the AIA in California, Utah, and Washington. The AIA was very supportive and provided links to the study on their websites and by other means. In addition, hundreds of architects were contacted through direct email methods. However, responses from architects were difficult to obtain. Analyses of architects’ responses to the electronic survey should consider the possibility that architects who showed interest in the study may be more knowledgeable about requirements for nonstructural seismic bracing than architects in aggregate. Of the architects that responded to the survey, the view that architects (and secondly structural engineers) were actually the most knowledgeable concerning nonstructural seismic bracing was expressed. This response differs from all other groups (Appendix D).
Architects in the electronic survey and in telephone interviews expressed cost concerns more than any other group, with the exception of contractors. Also, in telephone conversations there were concerns expressed by several architects that the existing standards were both difficult to understand and excessive. Nonetheless, for the architects who did respond to the electronic survey, nonstructural seismic design was considered to be important (Figure 4.4.1). This same respondent group believed that enhanced enforcement of existing codes combined with more detailed and useful design guides would be successful measures (Figures 4.4.2, 4.4.3).
Figure 4.4.1 Importance of Nonstructural Seismic Bracing for Architects
Identification of Methods to Achieve Successful Implementation of Nonstructural and Equipment Seismic Restraints
Page 28
Figure 4.4.2 Architects’ Rating of the Effectiveness of Enhanced Enforcement of Current Standards
# Answer % 1 High probability of increasing compliance 75%
2 Medium probability of increasing compliance 25%
3 Low probability of increasing compliance 0%
Total 100%
Figure 4.4.3 Architects Rating of the Effectiveness of Providing More Detailed Design Standards # Answer % 1 High probability of increasing compliance 75%
2 Medium probability of increasing compliance 25%
3 Low probability of increasing compliance 0% Total 100%
Survey results regarding the views of architects are not conclusive, in light of the modest sample size, especially in relationship to the dominant role architects typically have in the design process. Whether or not architects, as a group, actually have a low level of interest in nonstructural seismic design (as is indirectly implied by poor survey response rates) should be investigated in further research, possibly as a component of continuing education courses on this subject.
Identification of Methods to Achieve Successful Implementation of Nonstructural and Equipment Seismic Restraints
Page 29
4.5 Contractors
The electronic survey results and telephone interviews of contractors resulted in several common themes. Generally, in their view, nonstructural seismic bracing and anchorage will occur if clearly shown on contract documents, in a way that can be properly estimated by either the general contractor or the appropriate subcontractors installing the subject nonstructural items. The vaguer the documents are, the less likely that correct construction will occur, and the more likely a change order will occur if enforcement is stressed or forced by building officials. Contractors tended to believe that the building inspector should be responsible, concerning conformance to nonstructural seismic design requirements (Figure 4.5.1). The authors found that most contractors expressed a willingness to do work that conformed to current codes, if this information was clearly shown on design documents. Furthermore, some contractors stated that their personal knowledge (about what is actually required by ASCE 7-05 and other codes) could actually be a disadvantage in the bid process, since other contractors (who may be less knowledgeable) might underestimate the cost of the work and win the bid.
Figure 4.5.1 Contractors’ Views of Nonstructural Seismic Design Responsibility Answer % Building inspector 57% Architect 14% Structural engineer 14% Overall design project manager 14% Total 100%
Contractors did believe that stronger enforcement, including withholding of certificates of occupancy, use of fines, and other punitive measures, would be effective. The use of such punitive measures was given a lower likelihood of success by most design professionals (Figure 4.5.2).
Figure 4.5.2 Effectiveness of Punitive Measures for Noncompliance in the Opinion of Contractors
# Answer % 1 High probability of increasing compliance 50%
2 Medium probability of increasing compliance 33%
3 Low probability of increasing compliance 17% Total 100%
Identification of Methods to Achieve Successful Implementation of Nonstructural and Equipment Seismic Restraints
Page 30
4.6 Mechanical and Electrical Engineers
Mechanical and electrical engineers are often the key individuals in the design team with respect to the type of equipment specified in buildings or facilities. Yet, the training of these professionals (with ME or EE degrees) often does not really address seismic design. In the view of the authors, it may be unreasonable, therefore, to expect these professionals to be responsible for seismic design. In telephone interviews, mechanical and electrical engineers were almost without exception aware that certain seismic requirements did exist. If they were instructed to perform this work, various strategies were used:
• Hiring a specialty design consultant (usually a structural engineer);
• Hiring a company that provided design services as a package with purchase of equipment, such as vibration isolators;
• Using “standard” details from industry sources, such as SMACNA (SMACNA, 2000).
For the electronic survey respondents, the mechanical engineers did typically believe that seismic design was their responsibility. However, in conflict with this finding, the mechanical and electrical engineers in telephone interviews did not typically view seismic design as their responsibility by default, just because they specify the equipment. In fact, several engineers commented that such a design would require knowledge about structural member capacities (that the mechanical and electrical engineer would not have direct knowledge of).
5.0 Summary and Analysis of Input and Specific Written and Verbal Information
The results of this project point conclusively to several related categories of corrective measures to bring about successful implementation of existing nonstructural seismic design provisions to occur. Some of the groups that were either difficult to contact for the electronic survey or were reluctant to respond to the survey for various reasons were given more attention in telephone calls. Some key supplemental findings obtained from telephone interviews are summarized herein.
There was a tendency of owners to trust their design professionals, even if they were unsure about exactly what was required for nonstructural bracing. Sophisticated owners, such as representatives of schools, hospitals and public utilities, were very aware of the need to properly anchor and brace nonstructural items, regardless of which state they were from.
Identification of Methods to Achieve Successful Implementation of Nonstructural and Equipment Seismic Restraints
Page 31
Architects’ responses were similar to the electronic survey for the most part. Some architects in the telephone interviews were more candid in their belief that nonstructural seismic requirements were either overly conservative or unnecessarily complex. Contractors expressed willingness to correctly implement nonstructural seismic measures, but often stated that general design details were unclear, very difficult to quantify, and therefore nearly impossible to accurately bid. Several contractors suggested creation of or use of a separate specifications section devoted to nonstructural seismic requirements. Bids for nonstructural seismic bracing could then correspond to this specification section. In California, plan reviewers expressed a high degree of confidence in the correctness of nonstructural seismic work for critical facilities, such as hospitals. However, plan reviewers in other states were less confident. In fact, plan reviewer comments made in the telephone interviews disclosed that some are actually under pressure to not carefully review nonstructural seismic provisions. Mechanical engineers often preferred to rely on design services provided by companies that also provided other equipment, such as vibration isolators (rather than do the design work themselves.) Mechanical engineers reported that this aspect of their work was rarely reviewed, if the facility was not critical.
Identification of Methods to Achieve Successful Implementation of Nonstructural and Equipment Seismic Restraints
Page 32
6.0 Conclusions and High-Priority Recommendations to Achieve Successful Implementation of Nonstructural Seismic Requirements
Figure 6.1 restates the high-priority problem areas selected by survey participants (greater than 25% stating that the items were a major concern).
Recommendations given in Sections 6.1 through 6.7 were developed by expanding upon the general concepts presented in Figures 6.1 and 6.2, in conjunction with interpretation of written respondent responses (contained in Appendices A through H), utilization of telephone interview results from Appendix I, and consideration of research by others. The authors believe that each one of these recommendations should be vetted through a peer review process, which could then result in the most effective implementation, considering local jurisdictional factors and project-specific variables.
Figure 6.1 Highest Priority Reasons for Noncompliance and Their Relative Importance; Summary including All Respondent Groups
Problem Area or Issue Inhibiting Compliance with Nonstructural Seismic Code Requirements, as Rated by Respondents
% rating as very high-priority problem area
No one is adequately trained to make sure the standards are complied with. 44%
There is little regulatory enforcement of compliance with the standards. 42%
No one knows who is ultimately responsible for compliance. 40% It is too expensive to comply with the standards. 35% There is a communication breakdown among everyone involved in constructing the building that contributes to noncompliance. 35%
Compliance just falls through the cracks. 33% Everyone just assumes someone else will make sure that compliance occurs. 31%
Everyone passes the buck to someone else, so compliance doesn't occur. 26%
The standards are too difficult to understand. 25%
Identification of Methods to Achieve Successful Implementation of Nonstructural and Equipment Seismic Restraints
Page 33
Respondents likewise ranked solutions that they considered to be potentially very effective. Figure 6.2 summarizes the highest priority corrective measures recommended by respondents to the electronic survey, which were also confirmed by telephone interviews.
Figure 6.2 Highest Priority Recommendations for Bringing about Successful Implementation of Nonstructural Seismic Design Provisions; Summary including All Respondent Groups Possible Solutions to Increase Compliance with Nonstructural Seismic Code Requirements, as Rated by Respondents
% rating as a very effective solution
Better education of design professionals could lead to good design and construction practices. 81%
Better education of contractors and equipment suppliers could lead to good design and construction practices. 71%
Better education of owners could lead to good design and construction practices. 57%
Stricter building code enforcement could lead to good design and construction practices. 48%
Better public education about hazards posed by nonstructural items in an earthquake could lead to good design and construction practices. 47%
New technical provisions in the building codes, i.e., improvement in the technical requirements, could lead to good design and construction practices.
45%
Financial incentives, such as reduced insurance costs, could lead to good design and construction practices. 40%
Better internal quality control by design professionals could lead to good design and construction practices. 39%
Design fees specifically allocated to this work could lead to good design and construction practices. 37%
6.1 Educational Factors
The need for increased education was rated as a top priority by nearly every respondent group. Recommendations to accomplish this objective are:
a) Utilize the existing continuing education requirements for engineers, architects, and contractors to substantially increase the state of knowledge of what current seismic design requirements are. Recent reports by others (ATC, 2008) also make this recommendation. These continuing education courses must be tailored to the audience, and in fact should probably be quite different courses for structural engineers, other engineers (civil, mechanical,
Identification of Methods to Achieve Successful Implementation of Nonstructural and Equipment Seismic Restraints
Page 34
and electrical), architects, and contractors. In the opinion of the authors, to be effective, these courses should be very visual. Photographs of equipment, piping, and other nonstructural items should be used as examples, with installed nonstructural seismic restraint system solutions presented.
b) Encourage nonstructural seismic design topics be included in educational courses at universities and colleges.
c) Work with engineering, architecture, and contractor licensing entities to make testing on nonstructural seismic requirements a topic treated in appropriate depth on licensing exams.
d) Professional organizations, such as EERI or the structural engineering associations of each state, could assist in the educational effort through making presentations at conferences for the AIA, ASME, IEEE, ICC, and others.
e) A fairly consistent theme, suggested by several respondent groups, was that the availability of more detailed design standards would be helpful. As demonstrated in the data in Appendices A though H, many groups did not know of the many such standards or design guides that already exist. Conveying the availability (and proper use of) these documents by FEMA and industry groups (SMACNA, NFPA, and others) should be a part of the educational process.
f) Organizations such as SEAOC could develop design guides for nonstructural bracing to a similar level of detail available in design guides for structural design (SEAOC, 2006).
6.2 Factors Related to Definition of Design Responsibility
The authors found evidence to support our hypotheses regarding barriers to nonstructural seismic safety design implementation. Specifically, a sizeable proportion of our respondents reported that the lack of communication among everyone involved in the construction of a building contributes to noncompliance with nonstructural seismic safety standards, illustrating the lack of communication described by Moses (1998) and Petak (2008). Moreover, respondents asserted that no one really knows who is ultimately responsible for code compliance, and that more often than not, everyone simply assumes that someone else will or should be responsible. This reflects the diffusion of responsibility so commonly found in psychological studies of social activity (e.g., Bickman, 1972). Thus, establishment of a clear chain of responsibility for nonstructural seismic design was identified as a top priority, second only to increased education, in terms of potential effectiveness. Further study of this problem area is merited. A few possible solutions were identified in this study:
a) The respondents to the survey did not rate highly the concept of a separate certification for nonstructural seismic design. Nonetheless, the authors believe this concept merits further study. Nonstructural seismic design requires basic knowledge of a number of factors that span
Identification of Methods to Achieve Successful Implementation of Nonstructural and Equipment Seismic Restraints
Page 35
multiple disciplines: engineering mechanics, structural engineering, and some knowledge of mechanical and electrical engineering, architecture, and even facility management and maintenance. It can be asserted that not everyone who has a license in any one of these disciplines is automatically qualified to perform nonstructural seismic design. One successful model that clearly defines responsibility is the requirement in California that only a licensed structural engineer (SE) can perform nonstructural seismic design for critical facilities, such as hospitals. However, it can also be asserted that this requirement (SE certification) for all classes of structures in all states is more stringent than necessary. Further study of the concept of a specific certification for nonstructural seismic design is therefore recommended. One possible model would be a nonstructural seismic design certification, which would require a base certification of licensure, such as a PE or AIA. This process could be administered by the appropriate State licensing board. Separate testing and licensure would then be required for nonstructural seismic design. In the view of the authors, an SE licensee should not require further testing, but the formality of certification should exist. While this is just one possible model, it would result in a clear system, where only a professional with the required certification could perform the work.
b) If the mandatory certification concept encounters administrative or legal barriers in a particular community, alternate approaches could be proposed. For example, a nonstructural seismic design certification could be available based on certain educational or testing criteria established by professional organizations, such as structural engineering groups (e.g. SEI, SEAOC, etc.), ASCE, AIA, ASME, IEEE, or others. This certification (which in this case would not be mandatory) could be used by professionals as a means of alerting clients to the importance of nonstructural seismic design and concurrently demonstrating their competency to do the required work.
c) From a contractor’s perspective, there was also no clear definition of responsibility for nonstructural seismic work. Several general contractors did state that they expected their specialty subcontractors for mechanical and electrical equipment, interior finishes, etc., to be responsible for nonstructural seismic work that was required by building codes. This issue is addressed further in Section 6.3.
6.3 Modification of the Financial Structure of Design Fees and Construction Bidding to Specifically Itemize Nonstructural Design and Construction Work.
The concept of allocating specific fees for nonstructural seismic design was rated as a potentially very effective measure by structural engineers. In fact, 70% of SEs rated this as a potentially very effective approach. This information was supplemented by results from telephone and face-to-face interviews, revealing that the work associated with correct and thorough nonstructural
Identification of Methods to Achieve Successful Implementation of Nonstructural and Equipment Seismic Restraints
Page 36
seismic design is a nontrivial scope of work. Yet, in the view of these same respondents, the work would often receive the same fee if it were accomplished incompletely (such as using overly general notes on drawings that instructed the equipment supplier to do the work) versus actually doing a thorough design tailored to a specific project. Thus an incentive to “pass the buck” exists in the current system (excepting localities that require specific designs by SEs).
Another solution is for owners themselves to require and enforce a detailed and thorough nonstructural seismic design. Private utilities have reported success in nonstructural bracing implementation through development of a seismic criteria document that must be used by all consultants performing work for the utility (Masek et.al, 2003). For these utility projects, certification of correct nonstructural bracing is a prerequisite for final engineer and contractor payment.
From a contractor’s perspective, modifying the current specification and bidding process to include separate specification sections for nonstructural seismic requirements, as well as requiring a separate line item for nonstructural seismic work on bid documents, would be beneficial. This approach essentially forces direct consideration of nonstructural seismic requirements, independently of the quality or completeness of design documents. This approach has been used on a number of seismic retrofit projects reported by respondents, and for these projects the approach was reported to be effective. Use of this approach on general construction projects (i.e. not just seismic retrofit projects) is proposed in this recommendation.
6.4 Modification or Adaptation of Existing Plan Review and Building Inspection Processes
This area has been given varying levels of attention in different geographic locations. In St. Louis (ATC, 2008) the local jurisdiction requires the use of checklists to verify that nonstructural seismic design has been accomplished. In California, for critical facilities, nonstructural seismic design measures are thoroughly reviewed by the Office of Statewide Health Planning and Development (OSHPD) (CAC, 2007), with reportedly very high code compliance success rates. At the opposite extreme, some plan reviewers reported that careful examination of nonstructural seismic bracing design was unnecessary and even discouraged by their supervisors or other public officials. While development of a uniform system that works for every jurisdiction may be impractical, development of a system that ensures reasonable conformance to nonstructural seismic bracing requirements should certainly be possible. As with other groups of respondents, code enforcement professionals and inspectors believed that the core solution related to education. In this case, as with other professions, a professional organization such as the International Code Council (ICC) could play a lead role in development of and implementation of continuing education courses.
Identification of Methods to Achieve Successful Implementation of Nonstructural and Equipment Seismic Restraints
Page 37
Stricter code enforcement is also an essential part of this process. However, given the current reported level of noncompliance with building codes (Figure 6.3), it may be doubtful that the problem of noncompliance can be solved by only heightened enforcement. There are economic reasons for this view as well. Implementation of such a system (with very thorough review, such as for hospitals in California) would likely be very costly (if adapted to all structures in all states with nonstructural seismic design requirements). Respondents also indicated that a system that encouraged conformance through education would be more effective than creation of or use of more punitive measures for nonconformance.
Figure 6.3 Percent of Respondents Responding to the Question: How Prevalent is Noncompliance?
# Answer %
1 Very common 25%
2 Occasional 55%
3 Rare 20%
Total 100%
Identification of Methods to Achieve Successful Implementation of Nonstructural and Equipment Seismic Restraints
Page 38
6.5 Creation of Incentives for Compliance
The concept of creating some sort of incentive system for compliance was viewed favorably by 40% of respondents. Given that nonstructural seismic requirements are part of the building code, and therefore the law, the need for an incentive program could be questioned. Nonetheless, incentive programs do already exist, especially for voluntary seismic retrofit projects. Some respondents indicated that seismic retrofit projects did not always give the same level of attention to nonstructural retrofitting as to retrofitting the primary structure. Yet existing incentive programs available through FEMA can be used to fund up to 75% of nonstructural seismic retrofit costs. Reference is made to the following website for more information: www.fema.gov/government/grant/pdm.
For new buildings, several respondents suggested that perhaps insurance companies could offer incentives for demonstration of nonstructural seismic design completeness. Further study of this concept has merit, as both the building owner and insurance company could potentially benefit from such as system. 6.6 Simplification of Current Code Provisions
A complaint expressed by some architects, engineers, and other groups (who reported that they were familiar with current seismic design provisions) was that the current provisions are unnecessarily complex for most nonessential structures. Exploring written comments from the 45% of respondents in Figure 6.2 (who thought better code provisions were needed) reveals this finding. While the scope of this study specifically excluded (from the onset) any research into technical changes in the current building codes, this finding should nonetheless not be ignored. This topic could be part of a future study by others.
6.7 Other Solutions
The amount of information collected from respondents and contained in Appendices A through J is substantial. These data are sufficiently detailed to be usable for further research by other researchers or practitioners. The authors encourage others to review and analyze this information and develop solutions that work best for their local jurisdictions.
Identification of Methods to Achieve Successful Implementation of Nonstructural and Equipment Seismic Restraints
Page 39
7.0 Recommendations for Further Research
The authors recommend expansion of the survey in order to further validate results and to test recommendations given in this report.
The authors believe that one of the more effective ways to validate and expand upon the research in this report would be to implement a series of trial continuing education courses carefully crafted to address the high-priority problem areas and high-priority solutions presented in this report. These courses should address the identified procedural problem areas and potential solutions (rather than just providing technical design examples for current code provisions.) Upon completion of these courses, attendees could be asked to provide further input regarding how to best achieve successful implementation of nonstructural seismic design requirements that exist in current building codes. Information gathered from participants in these trial courses could then be used to identify new measures or approaches to achieve successful implementation of nonstructural seismic design provisions.
Further study of the concept of a specific certification for nonstructural seismic design is also recommended. Possible models for such a new certification should be studied through a cooperative effort between licensing boards and authorities for various design and construction disciplines. Consideration should be given to both a mandatory specialty licensing requirement and a voluntary certification, to determine which approach would be most effective.
Appendix A, Electronic Survey Results, All Disciplines Page A‐1
Identification of Methods to Achieve Successful Implementation of Nonstructural and Equipment Seismic Restraints
Appendix A: Complete Qualtrics Report from Electronic Survey
Appendix A, Electronic Survey Results, All Disciplines Page A‐2
1.0 Introduction
This appendix provides a summary of data gathered from all respondent groups, using the on line Qualtrics survey tool. Questions are listed in the order that they appeared to respondents.
2. Please identify your primary profession by selecting ONE of the buttons below
Answer Response %
Facility/Building owner 1 1%
Facility manager 9 5%
Architect 15 8%
Structural engineer 61 32%
Civil engineer 13 7%
Mechanical or Electrical engineer 6 3%
General Contractor 9 5%
Building Subcontractor 1 1%
Equipment manufacturer (please specify the type of equipment you manufacture, e.g., ductwork bracing)
5 3%
Supplier or installer of specialty seismic bracing devices
1 1%
Building inspector 11 6%
Building plan reviewer 25 13%
University professor (please specify field of expertise)
2 1%
Other (SEE NOTES) 30 16%
Total 189 100%
Appendix A, Electronic Survey Results, All Disciplines Page A‐3
Equipment manufacturer (please specify the type of equipment you manufacture, e.g., ductwork bracing)
University professor (please specify field of expertise)
Other (SEE NOTES)
MEP disaster reduction and emergency planning
emergency preparedness coordinator
seismic expansion joint seismology Building Mechanical Inspector
security products gas utility
cable type sway bracing for all non‐structural building components
Building Official
Connectors Building Official
BUILDING OFFICIAL
earthquake engineer
retired building inspector
Engineering Geologist (State government)
Social Science Research‐‐Contract research
Planner
Safety Officer
Sales Engineering
manager in a hospital
Bldg Permit Counter supervisor
HVAC Inspector
Building Official
Building Official
Building Official
Building Official
Building Official
Building Official
Building Official
Building Official
Industry Technical Director
Building Official
Appendix A, Electronic Survey Results, All Disciplines Page A‐4
Building Official
Building Official
Building Official
Director, Government & Public Affairs
3. How many years have you been employed
# Answer Average Value Standard Deviation
1 Years 21.22 11.45
Total 21.22 11.45
4. What is the primary state in which you do most of your business?
# Answer Response %
1 California 113 63%
2 Utah 30 17%
3 Washington 11 6%
4 Other 25 14%
Total 179 100%
5. In what state do you reside?
# Answer %
1 California 73%
2 Utah and Washington 20%
3 Washington 8%
Total 100%
Appendix A, Electronic Survey Results, All Disciplines Page A‐5
6. What is the highest level of education you have achieved?
# Answer Response %
1 Less than high school 0 0%
2 High school graduate or equivalent 1 1%
3 Trade/Technical school graduate (please specify your area of study)
8 4%
4 Some college 22 12%
5 College graduate (please specify your major field of study)
73 41%
6 Post‐graduate degree (master's, doctoral, other) (please specify your degree and area of study)
75 42%
Total 179 100%
Trade/Technical school graduate (please specify your area of study)
College graduate (please specify your major field of study)
Post‐graduate degree (master's, doctoral, other) (please specify your degree and area of study)
Automotive Engineering Nursing M.S. Civil Engineering ‐ Structural
carpentry also Electrical BSCE doctorate, Civil Engineering
Inspection Technology Civil Engineering Ph.D.
engineering Civil Engineer PhD Civil Engineering
Appendix A, Electronic Survey Results, All Disciplines Page A‐6
carpentry and electrical BSCE Master's in structural
Refrigeration Technology Civil Engineering master's in Structural Engineering
Plumbing B.S., Structural Engineering Civil‐Structural
Electrical Business MS ‐ CIVIL ENGR
structural MPA
psychology geotechnical
Mech. Engr Masters, structural engineering
Bach of ARCH PhD (Catastrophe Risk Management/Structural Engineering)
BS in Architectural Engineer MSCE, MBA Project Management
BARCH‐Architect PhD ‐ Structures
BS‐Bldg. Const. Mgmt. Master's, geological sciences
Engineering MS Structural Eng.
Mech. Engr. MS Structures UC Berkeley
Civil Engineering Masters‐geophysics
Bachelor of Arch. Sociology
Architecture MSCE
Civil Engineering MS
structural engineering MS Geology
Industrial Engineering and Management Sciences
MS CE, structural engineering
engineering MS Structural Engineering
BSEE Masters ‐ Structural Engineering
Water/wastewater Master's Structural eng
BS CE Master's
Civil Engineering Master's‐Structural Engineering
Civil Engineering Masters
architectural engineering Master's Structural Eng.
nursing MS Structural Engineering
Civil Engineering Structural Emphasis
M.S. ‐ Structural Engineering
building engineering Masters ‐ structural
Civil Engineering Masters in Civil Engineering ‐ Structural Focus
BS civil engineering MBA
Civil Engineering MS Structural Eng
Appendix A, Electronic Survey Results, All Disciplines Page A‐7
BS in Civil Engineering Masters
Mechanical Engineering MS Structural
B.S. Architectural Engineering master of public policy
Civil Engineering MS Civil Engineering
German Culture Masters in Structural Engineering
Construction Management MBA
Structural Engineering architectural engineering
Civil Engineer MBA International Business
Architecture Master's Structural Engineering
Management MS, structural engr.
Geological Engineering MS Civil Engineering
Business MBA
Architecture Doctorate in Mechanical Engineering
architecture MS Structural Engineering
Civil Engineering architecture/engineering
AS ‐ Building Inspection Technology
MS Civil Engineering
Const. Technology PhD
Construction Engineering Technology
Civil Engineering
Industrial Arts Master of Architecture
Public Admin MS Civil Engineering
Business/Construction technology
Fire protection
Architecture MPA
architecture Civil Engineering
Architecture Master‐ Civil/ structural
BS in Civil Engineering Master of Fine Arts
BS Constr. Management MS Civil
Architecture Master of Science‐Engineering
Civil Engr. MS Manufacturing Mgmt
Mechanical Engineering
Mechanical Engineer
Appendix A, Electronic Survey Results, All Disciplines Page A‐8
7. Please identify the types of structures or facilities with which you have experience. Check one or more categories as is applicable.
# Answer %
1 Federal Government buildings 23%
2 Local or State Government buildings 48%
3 Emergency Services, Fire, Police 34%
4 Healthcare 41%
5 Utilities 27%
6 K‐12 Schools 30%
7 Universities 35%
8 Office and Commercial 74%
9 Industrial 61%
10 Residential 66%
11 High Occupancy, convention centers 28%
12 Others (please list) 17%
Others (please list)
Bridges
All
All of above
Recreational
Single family dwellings/duplexes
amusements rides etc.
HIGHWAY DESIGN
Explosives Manufacturing
Malls
Hazardous Material usage/storage: Bioresearch;
Historic structures of archaic materials
Transportation
I only get involved thru customer requests and the building type is wide open
Water and Waste Water
Water treatment facilities
sport facilities, jails
Appendix A, Electronic Survey Results, All Disciplines Page A‐9
Tuck unders
Treatment Plants
Aquariums
High Rise Buildings
Hazardous
Retail, semiconductor,
Airport, Jails
Malls
Hotels/Motels, Resorts
n/a
Deep Foundations, Marine
Prisons, Courthouses
Army structures
8. How many years experience do you have in your profession? (Please indicate below)
# Answer Average Value Standard Deviation
1 Years 23.34 10.87
Total 23.34 10.87
9. Have you ever been in an earthquake?
# Answer %
1 Yes 87%
2 No 13%
Total 100%
Appendix A, Electronic Survey Results, All Disciplines Page A‐10
10. Are you familiar with any codes, design guidelines, or standards that govern the installation of nonstructural and equipment seismic restraints in buildings.
# Answer %
1 Yes 80%
2 No 20%
Total 100%
11. Please list the codes that you are familiar with:
#1 #2 #3 #4 #5
International Building Code
ASCE 7 SMACNA ASCE 41
IBC 2006 older versions of UBC
1997 UBC ASCE 7 ‐ 05
UBC ICBO AIA Minimum Standards for Healthcare Occ.
NFPA 99
IBC UBC SBC NBC NBCC
ASCE 7‐05 CBC 2007 IBC 2006 UBC 1997 AISC Steel Construction Manual
IBC ‐current and past ASCE‐7 ‐ current and past
UBC ‐ past editions BOCA ‐ past editions
SBC ‐ past editions
UBC '97 IBC '06 FEMA 356 ASCE 7 ASCE 41
2006 IBC ASCE7‐05
IBC Mass Building Code
labc
building code seismic code design for shear values
residential code
Safety Gas Shut off Valves
Water Heater Anchors
Anchor Bolts
NY Build Code UBC IBC BOCA ASCE7‐05
2007 CALIFORNIA BLDG CODE
2007 CALIFORNIA MECHANICAL
2007 CALIFORNIA PLUMBING CODE
2007 CALIFORNIA ELECTRICAL CODE
2005 CALIFORNIA
Appendix A, Electronic Survey Results, All Disciplines Page A‐11
CODE ENERGY CODE
2007 CBC 2007 CEC 2007 CMC ASCE 7‐05
uniform plumbing code
2007 CBC
IBC
2001 CBC (1997 UBC)
2007 CBC (2006 IBC & ASCE 7‐05)
IBC
California Building Code
ASCE 7‐05 Seismic Restrain Manual by SMACNA
ASCE 7‐05 UBC IBC CBC UMC
ICC
CBC ASCE AISC ACI NDS
2001 California Building Code Section 1632
ASCE 7‐05 Chapter 13
calif bldg code
2006 IBC, IRC, IPC,IMC, NEC, IFC,
UBC Title 24 California State Building code
ASCE 7 2005 CBC 2007 IBC 2006 NDS AISC
2006 IBC 2006 IRC
1997 UBC 2006 IBC ASCE‐7 older version of UBC and IBC
UBC IBC
Uniform Building Code (1973‐1997)
International Building Code (2000‐2006)
ASCE 7.02, 7.05 California Building Code 1998, 2001, 2007
Factory Mutual Federal Emergency Management Agency
OSHPOD
CBC 2007 IBC 2006 + Referenced standards
CBC 2001 UBC 1997 UBC 1994
"61 ‐ "97 UBC "00 ‐ "06 IBC FEMA 178 ‐ ASCE 31
ATC 33 ‐ ASCE 41 Los Angeles City Building Code
Appendix A, Electronic Survey Results, All Disciplines Page A‐12
UBC, 1997 and earlier
ASCE 7 IBC NEHRP Provisions SEAOC Bluebook NFPA‐13
Part 4 of the National Building Code of Canada (NBC)
California’s SB 1953 for hospitals
2003 & 2006 International Building Code
San Francisco 2001 CBC
Hawaii building code
ASCE 7‐05 ASCE 31 ASCE 41 NFPA 13
ASCE 7 FEMA 356 ASCE 31 ASCE 41 FEMA design Guides
FEMA Nonstructural Guidelines
nfc AIA guidelines IBC
California Building Code (multiple versions)
International Building Code
ASCE 7‐05 NFPA SMACNA
UBC ASCE 7 RMI IBC
TCLEE water wastewater guidelines
UBC
Seattle Building Code
International Building Code
ASCE 7‐05 AWWA D100‐05
UBC 97 IBC 2001 IBC 2003
CBC 2007, IBC 2006, ASCE 7‐05 etc
Title 24 Past UBC codes & Title 24
97 UBC
IBC/ASCE7/FEMA OSHPD UBC BOCA SBCCI
IBC 2006 ASCE 7
ASCE 7‐05 California Building Code
Uniform Building Code
Title 24, California Building Code
IBC
IBC UBC
CBC ASCE IBC
IBC 2006 ASCE 07 ACI 318 & 530 AISC 360 & 341 NDS
1997 UBC ASCE 7‐05 ASCE 41‐06
International Building Code
ASCE 7
Appendix A, Electronic Survey Results, All Disciplines Page A‐13
ASCE 07
ASCE 7‐05 IBC 06
IBC 2006 ASCE/SEI 31‐03
NEHRP Provisions UBC IBC SMACNA ASCE 31
IBC2006
IBC ASCE 7 TI 809‐04
IBC IRC UBC
ASCE 7‐05 IBC 2006 ACI 318‐05 Appendix D
ASME B31.3 2002 (somewhat)
IBC IMC IPC IFC Oregon Mechanical Specialty Code
ASCE 7 ‐ 05 and 02 UBC 1997
IBC 2006 IBC 2003 Oregon Structural Specialty Code
CBC 2007
IBC ASCE 7 ASCE 31 ASCE 41
IBC/ASCE 7
ASCE 7 IBC 2006 SMACNA
NFPA 13 Uniform Plumbing Code
California Plumbing code
International building code
Uniform building code
CBC 2007 ACI 318 ASCE 7‐05 LA CITY ZONING CODE
AISC 341, 358
Los Angeles Building Code
California Building Code
CBC2007
2008 LABC
Section 304.4 2007 California Mechanical Code
Seismic Restraints Manuel Guidelines for Mechanical Systems SMACNA
ASCE 7‐05 Chapter 13
Los Angeles Building Code
Los Angeles Plumbing Code
N.F.P.A. 13 N.F.P.A. 14 N.F.P.A. 20
Ceiling lateral support
MEP equip support Curtain wall floor drift accommodation
Stair floor drift accommodation
Building differential movement
Appendix A, Electronic Survey Results, All Disciplines Page A‐14
expansion joints
California Building Code
California Plumbing Code
UBC IBC State of California Title 8
NFPA 13
LA City Bldg Code ASCE 7 AISC ACI
Uniform Building Code
Universal Building Code
Universal Pluming Code
2007 California Building Code
ASCE 7‐05
ASCE 7‐05 ACI 318‐05 ASTM C635 ASTM C636 CISCA for Seismic Zones 3‐4
Shelving Mechanical equipment
water heaters
CBC
ICC UBC
CMC CEC CPC furnishings ‐ bookcases, computers, etc.
Server Farms
CBC 2007 IBC 2006 CBC 2001 UBC 1997 UBC earlier
UBC UMC UPC UFC
UBC Former San Francisco Building Code
Los Angeles Building Code
IBC ASCE 7
ASCE 7 IBC 2006 1997 UBC
restraint of water heater in residential work
lay in ceiling grid restraint
tall furniture restraint
IBC UBC
CA Plumbing Code CA Mechanical Code
NEC
ASCE 7‐05
IBC CBC
ASCE‐7 IEBC Title 24
California Electrical Code
California Mechanical Code
California Plumbing Code
California Fire Code
ASCE07‐05
CMC SMACNA
Appendix A, Electronic Survey Results, All Disciplines Page A‐15
I‐Code CBC OSHPD DSA/State Fire codes
CMC CPC CEC
IEBC
Plumbing code Mechanical Code Electrical Code Energy Code
CBC
UMC
ASCE 7‐05
FEMA 450 ASCE 7
NEHRP IBC 2006 ASCE 7‐5
UBC
NEC IPC National Life Safety Code
BOCA
NEC (Electrical) UMC (Mechanical) UPC (Plumbing)
FEMA
12. Please indicate how familiar you are with the following codes:
Appendix A, Electronic Survey Results, All Disciplines Page A‐16
# Question 1‐ Not at all
familiar
2‐ Somewhat familiar
3‐ Moderately familiar
4‐ Very Familiar
5‐ Extremely familiar
Responses Mean
1 The International Building Code
8 14 36 78 28 164 3.63
2
ASCE 7‐05 (Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and Other Structures)
35 23 32 44 27 161 3.03
3
ASCE 31‐03 (Seismic Evaluation of Existing Buildings)
63 38 30 22 7 160 2.20
4 ASCE 41‐06 89 29 18 13 7 156 1.85
5 NFPA 82 43 14 13 2 154 1.77
13. When constructing a building in which standards or codes are you required to abide by:
Appendix A, Electronic Survey Results, All Disciplines Page A‐17
# Question Yes No I Don't Know
Responses Mean
1 The International Building Code 140 10 9 159 1.18
2 ASCE 7‐05 (Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and Other Structures)
116 4 28 148 1.41
3 ASCE 31‐03 (Seismic Evaluation of Existing Buildings) 27 47 60 134 2.25
4 ASCE 41‐06 20 38 75 133 2.41
5 NFPA 39 29 65 133 2.20
14. What are the penalties for noncompliance with The Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and Other Structures (ASCE 7‐05)? (Please respond in the box below. If you do not know what the penalties are, then write 'Don't Know'.
Text Response
Cannot procure a permit (theoretically), exposure to claims
Depends ‐ can lose privilege to practice as an engineer
don't know
don't know
Don't know
Don't know
'Don't Know'
Don/t Know
Don't Know
can't be built
do not know
No permit would be issued for a new or remodeled structure that didn't meet the minimum design loads
They do not get a building permit, if build without permit then double fee’s if not comply then Admin hearing and lien may be placed on the title.
Do not know for sure. But if the building fails you could be legally on the hook and sued
Don't know
Don't Know
Appendix A, Electronic Survey Results, All Disciplines Page A‐18
'Don't Know'
None
don't know
Don’t Know
Cannot get building permit
civil penalties (lawsuits)
Don't Know
None ‐ though you may not get a building permit
Projects that don’t comply are not approved, field inspectors will stop projects for not compliance if under construction
Don't Know
No Building Permit will be issued
Loss of license to practice structural engineering
Are we talking about a new building, a retrofit? Are we talking about "penalties" in the IBC/ASCE 7, or in the CAC?
Don't know
Will not get a building permit. Could be legal penalties if found negligent.
loss of license, liability
Don't know
don't know
Compliance with the IBC is required. Compliance with ASCE 7 is only as referenced by the IBC.
Structure will not be permitted
Don't know
Don’t know
I see little or no penalties, except for Liability exposure.
Don't know
Don't Know
Don't Know
Don't know
Don't Know
Don't Know
DOPL Reprimand
don't know
Civil litigation and disciplinary action by the state license board
Don't Know
Appendix A, Electronic Survey Results, All Disciplines Page A‐19
Don't know.
Don't Know
you could lose your license
Design is not according to code
Don't Know
Penalties could be loss of license or loss in a law suit. Most likely none. ASCE 7 is part of the CBC
Potential suspension or revoking of license
The building permit will be denied. In extreme cases of gross negligence or repeated noncompliance, a complaint can be filed and the engineer's license can be suspended or revoked.
Should be caught at plan check or red tagged at the site if caught there
No building permit shall be issued
Increased engineering time during construction and design
You don't get a building Permit. Other than that, I don't know.
Don't know
Varies pending degree of non‐compliance, stage of project, and who's prosecuting.
Death by hanging.
Liability risk ‐ don't know of code "penalties"
don't know
Non‐acceptance of the building. non‐receipt of C of O
LOSS OF LIFE
Compliance is required before building permit can be issued.
The design will not be approved for building permit.
don't know
Will not receive a permit to build.
no permit
don't know
don’t know
The AHJ should be able to require compliance through the plan review process and ultimately, the inspection process. If some building is constructed without the permit process, ultimately, the code enforcement process will ensure compliance.
Revocation of permit, possibly destruction of construction completed if not complying.
Don't know
Must comply with code requirements
none
don't know
Don't Know
Appendix A, Electronic Survey Results, All Disciplines Page A‐20
Don't Know
professional license impacts
Don't Know
Different seismic design response coefficients, spectral mapped acceleration, anchorage force requirements
Don't Know
don't know
No permit would be issued
What do you mean? If the design doesn't comply with code you may not get a permit or could be liable for a defective structure
We do not issue permits unless applicant complies with standards
Don't Know
Don't Know
You will not get approved drawings from plan check
Penalties as prescribed by law, revoke/suspend permit, fees established by BO over and above the permit fee.
Don't Know
A violation of the California law and possible loss of license or discipline from the boards. Law suits etc.
You will not be able to obtain permit.
Don't Know
To obtain a building permit, the designer must comply with ASCE 7‐05. In addition, the designer may be legally liable for not complying with the minimum standard of care.
15. What are the penalties for noncompliance with The International Building Code?
Text Response
Exposure to claim, cannot procure a building permit
Depends ‐ can lose privilege to practice as an engineer
Loss of Use, denial of Licensure in Healthcare Facilities
don't know
That's about the silliest question I can imagine.
Redesign
Don't know specifically, possibly disciplinary action
Appendix A, Electronic Survey Results, All Disciplines Page A‐21
'Don't Know'
Loss of License
Don't Know
Correct work or have project stopped
can't get a permit to build the building
stop work till compliance, or orders to comply with enforcement thru city attorney’s office
do not know
See above answer re: ASCE 7‐05
see previous
Do not know for sure. But if the building fails you could be legally on the hook and sued
Don’t know
It depends on the violation
Investigation Fees and increased construction and evaluation costs
'Don't Know'
Permit is not issued until compliance is shown through drawings, details and calculations
Noncompliance is not a code option.
Don’t know
Cannot get building permit
Loss of license, law suits, no building permit...
no permit
civil lawsuits
fine/loss of license
No Civil penalties. Potential failure to get building permit. Potential litigation associated with nonconformance with the standard of care
Projects that comply are not approved for construction during review, field inspectors will stop construction if noncompliance found at construction site
Don't Know
as adopted by the CBC it is required for building permit
loss of license to practice SE
see previous answers
Don't know
Same as ASCE 7.
yes
The building department will not finalize your building permit ‐ potential liability for damage that can be traced to non‐compliance
Don't know
Appendix A, Electronic Survey Results, All Disciplines Page A‐22
No building occupancy
don't know
Engineering License revoked and possible fines.
Building permit will not be issued
a pat on the back from the owner. Stupid question
no building permit, possible loss of engineering license, fines,
Don't know
don’t know
I see no penalties, other than Liability exposure, unless you consider jeopardizing Federal Disaster Relief Funding.
don't know
Don't know.
Don't Know
You cannot get a permit.
Loss of license, possible prosecution
Don't Know
DOPL Reprimand
don't know
Civil litigation and disciplinary action by the state license board
Don't know the exact penalty. I assume some kind of fine, never been fined yet.
Don't know.
Loss License
could lose your license
design is not according to code
Loss of professional license
Same as ASCE 7 above. It is most part of the CBC
Potential suspension or revoking of license
The same as for ASCE 7.
Should be caught at plan check or red tagged at the site if caught there
No building permit shall be issued
Prosecution, loss of license, no occupancy permit
Everything gets design by an engineer if it over 500 lbs or over 20 lbs and 5ft off the ground
You don't get a building permit. Other than that, I don't know
Disciplinary actions if someone catches you or there is a failure
Varies pending degree of non‐compliance, stage of the project, and who's prosecuting.
Appendix A, Electronic Survey Results, All Disciplines Page A‐23
Liability risk, denial of building permit.
Violators will be subject to penalties as prescribed by law.
Loss of contractor's license ‐ possible fines
Non‐acceptance of the building. non‐receipt of C of O
No permit given, redesign needed
I don't know
Building permit will not be issued until compliance is demonstrated.
The design will not be approved for a building permit.
court misdemeanors
IBC is a model code adopted by California and amended by local jurisdiction.
no permit
failure to receive permit
don't know
Do not get the Certificate of Occupancy
don’t know
Increased Liability
Same as above
revocation of permit, potentially destruction of construction if not compliant and unsafe
Don't know
Must comply or permit does not get issued
project doesn't get built
don't know
Don't know
Stop Work order, , Fines for work w/o permit, No final, No Certificate of Occupancy
professional license impacts
Appendix A, Electronic Survey Results, All Disciplines Page A‐24
16. Are you aware of any specific suggested nonstructural seismic restraint guidelines produced by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA)?
# Answer %
1 Yes 33%
2 No 67%
Total 100%
17. Please list any other resources you are aware of for guidance in nonstructural seismic restraint design:
Text Response
ATC
Seismic Restrain Manual by SMACNA
ASTM, CISCA
FEMA 74
FEMA 74 ‐ hazard mitigation for nonstructural elements
NFPA‐13, SMACNA Guidelines
Factory Mutual standards
NEHRP 2003
FEMA 450, FEMA 357 ‐ ASCE 41, FEMA 310 ‐ ASCE 31
SMACNA, proprietary system catalogs (Mason, Hilti, ISAT, et al.)
ISAT's OSHPD OPA‐0485, ATC‐29‐2,
Documents for the lay person (residential or office) from community earthquake preparedness projects in California
ASCE 31 and 41 were originally funded by FEMA.
FEMA 356, FEMA 412,413.414
Research by museums, such as the Getty.
SMACMA, NFPA, AWWA
SMACNA, Industry‐specific guidelines, ASME code (the best)
OSHPD, SMACNA
Loos & Co., Inc. Manual of Code Compliance Guidelines on Earthquake Resistance od Architectural,
Appendix A, Electronic Survey Results, All Disciplines Page A‐25
Mechanical and Electrical Components and Systems.
none
SMACNA
Title 24, California Building Code
ASCE‐7
SMACNA manual, ASHRAE seismic design guidelines, Department of the Interior Nonstructural guidelines, Tri Services manuals
I know that NFPA‐13 has some guidelines for bracing of fire sprinkler lines, but I do not know the specifics.
AWWA, Minimizing Earthquake Damage, A Guide For Water Utilities. (No Date)
NEHRP (National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program)
ASCE 31 FEMA 356
ATC 29, SEAONC, EERI Seminars
TI 809‐04, IBC, ASCE 7
Telcordia (Bellcore) Generic Requirement specifications for telecommunications equipment (not for restraints, for robust equipment) SEMI Guidelines ‐ for semiconductor equipment
SMACNA, NUSIG, OSHPD
ASCE 7‐05 provides the design loads. I'm not aware of any design guides though.
Mason West‐Seismic guidelines and details
California Building Code
Seismic Restraints Manuel Guideline for Mechanical Systems SMACNA
FEMA 413‐ Installing Seismic Restraints for Electrical Equipment
CBC
ASCE 7‐05, 2007 California Building Code, Guidelines for Seismic Restraint for Direct Hung Suspended Ceiling Assemblies by CISCA
FEMA 74‐‐Reducing Risks of Nonstructural Earthquake Damage FEMA 450‐‐NEHRP Recommended Provisions for Seismic Regulations FEMA 460‐‐Storage Racks
FEMA web site, CA OES
Ceiling and Interior Systems Construction Association (CISCA)
Henry Lagorio's book FEMA 154/July 1988
FEMA 450, FEMA 461, FEMA 412. FEMA 414, FEMA 395, FEMA 396, FEMA 397, FEMA 398, FEMA 399
common sense
Design standard for dropped ceiling restraints. (CISCA I believe)
state of California health and safety code
Local ordinances
FEMA pre‐standards such as350, 351, 368, 369
Appendix A, Electronic Survey Results, All Disciplines Page A‐26
none
UL HWD tested wall assemblies, Slip Track, Fire Track,
FEMA 454, HAZUS for Mitigation
Some ICC references are available.
ASCE 7‐05
None.
NEHRP, IBC, ASCE, FEMA
California Building Code, FEMA 310
CBC, title 24
EOTA
FEMA 74 ‐ Earthquake Hazard Mitigation for Nonstructural Elements
Appendix A, Electronic Survey Results, All Disciplines Page A‐27
18. How important do you think earthquake safety standards for are to other professionals in the building community?
# Answer %
1 1‐ not at all important 1%
2 2 12%
3 3 11%
4 4‐ moderately important 26%
5 5 15%
6 6 19%
7 7‐ extremely important 15%
Total 100%
Appendix A, Electronic Survey Results, All Disciplines Page A‐28
19. How important are nonstructural safety standards to you?
# Answer %
1 1‐ not at all important 1%
2 2 2%
3 3 2%
4 4‐ moderately important 11%
5 5 15%
6 6 34%
7 7‐ extremely important 34%
Total 100%
Appendix A, Electronic Survey Results, All Disciplines Page A‐29
20. In your geographic area, how important is the installation of earthquake anchorage and the bracing of nonstructural items such as walls, ceilings, lighting fixtures, firewater piping, and ductwork?
# Answer %
1 1‐ not at all important 2%
2 2 3%
3 3 4%
4 4‐ moderately important 13%
5 5 11%
6 6 27%
7 7‐ extremely important 40%
Total 100%
Appendix A, Electronic Survey Results, All Disciplines Page A‐30
21. In your geographic area, how important is the installation of seismic anchorage and the bracing of building components such as electrical transformers and electrical switchgear, and mechanical equipment, such as boilers, etc.
# Answer %
1 1‐ not at all important 2%
2 2 2%
3 3 5%
4 4‐ moderately important 9%
5 5 13%
6 6 28%
7 7‐ extremely important 41%
Total 100%
Appendix A, Electronic Survey Results, All Disciplines Page A‐31
22. In your geographic area, how important is the seismic anchorage and bracing design of facade elements, such as exterior panels and windows?
# Answer %
1 1‐ not at all important 2%
2 2 2%
3 3 7%
4 4‐ moderately important 11%
5 5 16%
6 6 22%
7 7‐ extremely important 41%
Total 100%
Appendix A, Electronic Survey Results, All Disciplines Page A‐32
23. In your geographic area, how important is the seismic anchorage and bracing design of process equipment in an industrial facility or utility?
# Answer %
1 1‐ not at all important 2%
2 2 3%
3 3 3%
4 4‐ moderately important 14%
5 5 12%
6 6 30%
7 7‐ extremely important 36%
Total 100%
Appendix A, Electronic Survey Results, All Disciplines Page A‐33
24. If a major earthquake were to occur in your area and if nonstructural or equipment items (such as those defined earlier) were NOT anchored or braced in a building, to what extent do you believe injuries or death would occur?
# Answer %
1 Injuries or death definitely would not happen 0%
2 Injuries or death probably would not happen 7%
3 Injuries or death may or may not happen 20%
4 Injuries or death probably would happen 48%
5 Injuries or death definitely would happen 26%
Total 100%
Appendix A, Electronic Survey Results, All Disciplines Page A‐34
25. If a major earthquake were to occur in your area and if equipment or nonstructural restraints were absent in a structure, to what extent do you believe that major damage would occur to the structure?
# Answer %
1 Major damage definitely would not happen 1%
2 Major damage probably would not happen 8%
3 Major damage may or may not happen 30%
4 Major damage probably would happen 43%
5 Major damage definitely would happen 19%
Total 100%
Appendix A, Electronic Survey Results, All Disciplines Page A‐35
26. If a major earthquake were to occur in your area, to what extent do you believe that damage to nonstructural or equipment items could result in severe enough damage to cause major facility downtime?
# Answer %
1 Major facility downtime definitely would not happen 0%
2 Major facility downtime probably would not happen 3%
3 Major facility downtime may or may not happen 15%
4 Major facility downtime probably would happen 55%
5 Major facility downtime definitely would happen 27%
Total 100%
Appendix A, Electronic Survey Results, All Disciplines Page A‐36
27. Which do you believe is more likely in your area (choose one):
# Answer %
1 Failure of, or significant damage to, nonstructural elements and systems during a moderate earthquake
91%
2 Structural collapse during a moderate earthquake 9%
Total 100%
Appendix A, Electronic Survey Results, All Disciplines Page A‐37
28. In your opinion, when a structure is to be built, who is responsible to be familiar with nonstructural seismic safety design standards? (Check all that apply)
# Answer Response %
1 Architect 128 86%
2 Structural engineer 121 81%
3 Civil engineer 66 44%
4 Mechanical engineer 131 88%
5 Electrical engineer 118 79%
6 General contractor 109 73%
7 Building subcontractor 92 62%
8 Equipment manufacturer 87 58%
9 Equipment supplier 69 46%
10 Supplier or installer of specialty seismic bracing devices
98 66%
11 Building inspector 132 89%
12 Building plan reviewer 118 79%
13 Construction project manager 92 62%
14 Overall design project manager 82 55%
15 Other (please specify) 13 9%
Appendix A, Electronic Survey Results, All Disciplines Page A‐38
Other (please specify)
facilities managers post construction
Owners and Building Officials
Owner
Developer
Owner
Fire Sprinkler consultant
Currently, nobody
owner
Mechanical and electrical subcontractors
special inspector
HVAC and Plumbing Inspectors
Building owner
Building owner or rep
Appendix A, Electronic Survey Results, All Disciplines Page A‐39
29. In your opinion, when a structure is to be built, who has the primary responsibility to be familiar with nonstructural seismic safety design standards? (Select one)
# Answer %
x1 Architect 30%
x2 Structural engineer 35%
x3 Civil engineer 2%
x4 Mechanical engineer 7%
x5 Electrical engineer 1%
x6 General contractor 3%
x7 Building subcontractor 0%
x8 Equipment manufacturer 1%
x9 Equipment supplier 0%
x10 Supplier or installer of specialty seismic bracing devices
3%
x11 Building inspector 7%
x12 Building plan reviewer 2%
x13 Construction project manager 1%
x14 Overall design project manager 7%
x15 Other (please specify) 2%
Total 100%
Appendix A, Electronic Survey Results, All Disciplines Page A‐40
30. In your opinion, who have you found to be the most informed about nonstructural seismic safety design standards. (Select one)
# Answer %
1 Architect 9%
2 Structural engineer 45%
3 Civil engineer 3%
4 Mechanical engineer 4%
5 Electrical engineer 0%
6 General contractor 2%
7 Building subcontractor 1%
8 Equipment manufacturer 1%
9 Equipment supplier 1%
10 Supplier or installer of specialty seismic bracing devices
9%
11 Building inspector 9%
12 Building plan reviewer 12%
13 Construction project manager 0%
14 Overall design project manager 1%
15 Other (please specify) 4%
Total 100%
Appendix A, Electronic Survey Results, All Disciplines Page A‐41
31. In your opinion, who have you found to be the least informed about nonstructural seismic safety design standards. (Select one)
# Answer %
1 Architect 23%
2 Structural engineer 0%
3 Civil engineer 5%
4 Mechanical engineer 1%
5 Electrical engineer 4%
6 General contractor 18%
7 Building subcontractor 8%
8 Equipment manufacturer 8%
9 Equipment supplier 9%
10 Supplier or installer of specialty seismic bracing devices
0%
11 Building inspector 3%
12 Building plan reviewer 1%
13 Construction project manager 8%
14 Overall design project manager 4%
15 Other (please specify) 6%
Total 100%
Appendix A, Electronic Survey Results, All Disciplines Page A‐42
32. Who do you believe is responsible for compliance with nonstructural seismic safety design standards? [Please rank order your responses with a '1' representing the party most responsible]
# Answer 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
11
12
13
14
15
Responses
1 Architect 46 22 13 10 9 1 1 2 2 4 3 1 1 1 0 116
2 Structural engineer
34 31 15 15 4 2 3 1 0 3 3 0 1 3 0 115
3 Civil engineer
5 5 8 4 1 3 3 3 1 1 0 6 4 5 1 51
4 Mechanical engineer
15 18 30 11 14 7 3 4 3 2 0 2 2 0 0 112
5 Electrical engineer
5 14 18 16 10 12
7 5 7 0 3 1 2 2 0 102
6 General contractor
14 13 7 19 16 5 9 7 4 6 1 1 0 0 0 102
7 Building subcontractor
2 8 11 9 11 10
5 8 6 4 7 1 1 1 0 84
8 Equipment manufacturer
7 2 9 8 2 8 5 6 4 9 5 7 2 1 0 75
Appendix A, Electronic Survey Results, All Disciplines Page A‐43
9 Equipment supplier
3 4 2 8 3 2 7 6 6 6 5 4 5 2 0 63
10
Supplier or installer of specialty seismic bracing devices
11 7 11 8 8 10
5 6 6 4 8 3 0 1 0 88
11
Building inspector
14 16 12 6 7 13
15
9 12
4 0 1 2 0 0 111
12
Building plan reviewer
9 14 8 3 11 10
11
11
4 4 4 4 1 0 0 94
13
Construction project manager
1 10 5 7 11 4 6 6 11
3 8 9 3 0 0 84
14
Overall design project manager
9 7 10 7 5 6 6 2 4 7 1 2 6 4 0 76
15
Other (please specify)
6 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 10
Total 181
171
159
131
112
94
87
76
70
57
48
42
31
20
2
Other (please specify)
Owner
Depends on contract
property owner
Developer
owner/developer
Professional of Record (Design Professional)
building owner/tenant
Special Inspector
Everyone designing a system
Inspectors
Appendix A, Electronic Survey Results, All Disciplines Page A‐44
33. In your opinion, who has ultimate responsibility to see that buildings are compliant with nonstructural seismic safety design standards? (Select one)
# Answer %
1 Architect 22%
2 Structural engineer 18%
3 Civil engineer 2%
4 Mechanical engineer 1%
5 Electrical engineer 0%
6 General contractor 5%
7 Building subcontractor 1%
8 Equipment manufacturer 0%
9 Equipment supplier 1%
10 Supplier or installer of specialty seismic bracing devices
2%
11 Building inspector 27%
12 Building plan reviewer 1%
13 Construction project manager 4%
14 Overall design project manager 7%
15 Other (please specify) 8%
Total 100%
Appendix A, Electronic Survey Results, All Disciplines Page A‐45
Other (please specify)
Owner
Depends on contract
property owner
Based on individual's scope of work
Professional of Record (Design Professional)
OWNER
everyone designing a system
inspector
building owner
Owner
Owner
Appendix A, Electronic Survey Results, All Disciplines Page A‐46
34. Given that there are standards governing the correct installation of nonstructural and equipment seismic restraints in buildings, how well do you believe these standards are complied with in your building community?
# Answer %
1 1‐ never complied with 1%
2 2‐ sometimes complied with 41%
3 3‐ usually complied with 52%
4 4‐ always complied with 5%
Total 100%
35. What percentage of completed structures would you estimate meet nonstructural and equipment seismic restraint standards in your building community?
# Answer Average Value Standard Deviation
1 % meeting standards 51.27 26.05
Total 51.27 26.05
Appendix A, Electronic Survey Results, All Disciplines Page A‐47
36. In cases where you believe nonstructural items in buildings and facilities have been designed and constructed with good seismic anchorage and bracing measures, why has this occurred? [Check all that apply]
# Answer Response %
1 The owner required and checked for compliance with these measures
48 35%
2 The government or other oversight group checked for compliance with these measures
77 56%
3 It was important to me in my professional capacity
58 42%
4 It was required for financing or insurance to be approved
22 16%
5 It was required before the contractor, subcontractor, and/or equipment suppliers could be paid
21 15%
6 It was required by design professionals 100 73%
7 Equipment suppliers provided anchorage kits for this purpose
22 16%
8 The specialty contractors knew what to do and performed this work correctly
53 39%
Appendix A, Electronic Survey Results, All Disciplines Page A‐48
9 It was a bid item, and therefore had to be done for the contractor to be paid
29 21%
10 It is a strictly enforced provision 47 34%
11 Building inspectors enforce these measures
81 59%
12 It is done as a matter of standard practice in my profession
26 19%
13 The owner hired a specialist in this area to design and/or construct these measures
22 16%
14 It occurred for the work my firm was involved in, but not for others in the same facility
3 2%
15 Other (please specify) 6 4%
16 Other (please specify) 0 0%
17 Other (please specify) 0 0%
Other (please specify) Other (please specify)
Other (please specify)
The local building department makes this issue a priority for both plan check and inspection
property owner
Independent inspectors found mistakes and public pressure required them to be corrected.
Owner required it
The owner has hired an excellent design and construction teams.
owners
Appendix A, Electronic Survey Results, All Disciplines Page A‐49
37. Please rank FIVE (5) from the list below in order of causal forces by dragging and dropping them to their respective order:
# Answer Responses
x1 The owner required and checked for compliance with these measures 36
x2 The government or other oversight group checked for compliance with these measures
61
x3 It was important to me in my professional capacity 51
x4 It was required for financing or insurance to be approved 18
x5 It was required before the contractor, subcontractor, and/or equipment suppliers could be paid
20
x6 It was required by design professionals 81
x7 Equipment suppliers provided anchorage kits for this purpose 18
x8 The specialty contractors knew what to do and performed this work correctly 47
x9 It was a bid item, and therefore had to be done for the contractor to be paid 24
x10 It is a strictly enforced provision 40
x11 Building inspectors enforce these measures 66
x12 It is done as a matter of standard practice in my profession 23
x13 The owner hired a specialist in this area to design and/or construct these measures 17
x14 It occurred for the work my firm was involved in, but not for others in the same facility 2
x15 Other (please specify) 3
x16 Other (please specify) 0
x17 Other (please specify) 0
Total
Appendix A, Electronic Survey Results, All Disciplines Page A‐50
38. To the extent that you see noncompliance with nonstructural and equipment seismic restraint standards in your building community, why do you think the noncompliance occurs? (Check all that apply)
# Answer %
1 I have never seen compliance 3%
2
The likelihood of a damaging earthquake in this area is too low to justify complying with the standards.
13%
3
It's not against the law to fail to comply with the standards; compliance will happen when it's the law.
11%
4 It is too time consuming to comply with these standards.
17%
5 It is too expensive to comply with the standards.
35%
6 There is little regulatory enforcement of compliance with the standards.
42%
7 The standards are poorly designed. 12%
Appendix A, Electronic Survey Results, All Disciplines Page A‐51
8 The standards are too difficult to understand.
25%
9 There is little incentive to comply with these standards.
23%
10 There is a lack of compensation for oversight compliance.
15%
11 No one is really interested in making sure the standards are complied with.
11%
12 No one is adequately trained to make sure the standards are complied with.
44%
13
There is a communication breakdown between everyone involved in constructing the building that contributes to noncompliance.
35%
14 There are liability concerns that prevent compliance.
2%
15 No one knows who is ultimately responsible for compliance.
40%
16 Everyone passes the buck to someone else, so compliance doesn't occur.
26%
17 Compliance just falls through the cracks.
33%
18 Penalties for noncompliance aren't severe enough to make compliance a high priority.
20%
19 Everyone just assumes someone else will make sure that compliance occurs.
31%
20 No one is qualified to certify compliance.
9%
21
The likely consequences of an earthquake in my area are to minimal to justify the cost and effort of compliance.
8%
22 Other (please specify) 11%
23 Other (please specify) 2%
24 Other (please specify) 0%
Appendix A, Electronic Survey Results, All Disciplines Page A‐52
Other (please specify) Other (please specify) Other (please specify)
lot of older buildings in my area that don't meet current seismic codes
belief in community that a big one will not happen in their lifetime
In my community, Michigan, Seismic seems to be a low priority
older design standards
Mechanical or electrical subcontractors sometimes
we enforce compliance
Code on seismic restraints are enforced as required
Inadequate field coordination between sub‐trades may preclude full conformance.
buildings are older than newer regulations
Owners do not want to spend any money
Contractors get lazy or just want to save money
Installation occurs without permit and regulatory inspection
Alterations occur without permit
older buildings
Appendix A, Electronic Survey Results, All Disciplines Page A‐53
39. Please rank order the reasons why you think noncompliance occurs. Include your own reasons in the ordering if you add any to the list. If there are more than five reasons in the list, rank only the top five. 1 = Most important.
# Answer Responses
x1 I have never seen compliance 1
x2 The likelihood of a damaging earthquake in this area is too low to justify complying with the standards.
11
x3 It's not against the law to fail to comply with the standards; compliance will happen when it's the law.
10
x4 It is too time consuming to comply with these standards. 17
x5 It is too expensive to comply with the standards. 36
x6 There is little regulatory enforcement of compliance with the standards. 45
x7 The standards are poorly designed. 13
x8 The standards are too difficult to understand. 23
x9 There is little incentive to comply with these standards. 24
x10 There is a lack of compensation for oversight compliance. 15
x11 No one is really interested in making sure the standards are complied with. 7
x12 No one is adequately trained to make sure the standards are complied with. 46
x13 There is a communication breakdown between everyone involved in constructing the building that contributes to noncompliance.
37
x14 There are liability concerns that prevent compliance. 2
x15 No one knows who is ultimately responsible for compliance. 39
x16 Everyone passes the buck to someone else, so compliance doesn't occur. 25
x17 Compliance just falls through the cracks. 31
x18 Penalties for noncompliance aren't severe enough to make compliance a high priority.
21
x19 Everyone just assumes someone else will make sure that compliance occurs. 36
x20 No one is qualified to certify compliance. 7
x21 The likely consequences of an earthquake in my area are to minimal to justify the cost and effort of compliance.
8
x22 Other (please specify) 5
x23 Other (please specify) 0
Appendix A, Electronic Survey Results, All Disciplines Page A‐54
40. How prevalent is noncompliance?
# Answer %
1 Very common 25%
2 Occasional 55%
3 Rare 20%
Total 100%
Appendix A, Electronic Survey Results, All Disciplines Page A‐55
41. In cases where nonstructural items are not adequately anchored and braced for earthquake loads, what are the primary factors that could lead to good design and construction practices? (Please check as many as apply
# Answer %
1 New technical provisions in the building codes, i.e. improvement in the technical requirements, could lead to good design and construction practices.
45%
2 Stricter building codes enforcement could lead to good design and construction practices.
48%
3 Better education of design professionals could lead to good design and construction practices.
81%
4 Better education of owners could lead to good design and construction practices.
57%
5 Better education of contractors and equipment suppliers could lead to good design and construction practices.
71%
6 Design fees specifically allocated to this work could lead to good design and construction practices.
37%
7 More federal grants for mitigation of nonstructural 11%
Appendix A, Electronic Survey Results, All Disciplines Page A‐56
hazards during remodels could lead to good design and construction practices.
8 Better internal quality control by design professionals could lead to good design and construction practices.
39%
9
The creation of a new system, with specific professional licensing requirements for this type of work, could lead to good design and construction practices.
18%
10 Fairer enforcement of standards across all projects could lead to good design and construction practices.
22%
11 Financial incentives, such as reduced insurance costs, could lead to good design and construction practices.
40%
12 Better public education of hazards posed by nonstructural items in an earthquake could lead to good design and construction practices.
47%
13
Punishment of design professionals and contractors or others associated with non‐compliant buildings or facilities could lead to good design and construction practices.
20%
14 Other (please specify) 7%
Other (please specify)
Simplification of requirements, increased clarity in requirements and the goals of the requirements
Have non‐structural components of concern trigger official building inspection.
Better bracing systems with simple to design connections to the structure. Minimal effect on the structural system = easier construction practices = simple installation = low cost = no reason not to comply.
It could be better worded and more specific in the Mechanical Codes.
making the standards simple and obvious
Better quality control
Communication between design professional, contractor and inspector can ensure qualify work
Given adequate oversight there is no problem ‐ seismic restraint is not that hard
Appendix A, Electronic Survey Results, All Disciplines Page A‐57
42. Please rank these in order of their causal force by dragging them into their respective order:
# Answer Responses
x1 New technical provisions in the building codes, i.e. improvement in the technical requirements, could lead to good design and construction practices.
34
x2 Stricter building codes enforcement could lead to good design and construction practices.
38
x3 Better education of design professionals could lead to good design and construction practices.
68
x4 Better education of owners could lead to good design and construction practices. 50
x5 Better education of contractors and equipment suppliers could lead to good design and construction practices.
61
x6 Design fees specifically allocated to this work could lead to good design and construction practices.
36
x7 More federal grants for mitigation of nonstructural hazards during remodels could lead to good design and construction practices.
10
x8 Better internal quality control by design professionals could lead to good design and construction practices.
33
x9 The creation of a new system, with specific professional licensing requirements for this type of work, could lead to good design and construction practices.
17
x10 Fairer enforcement of standards across all projects could lead to good design and construction practices.
20
x11 Financial incentives, such as reduced insurance costs, could lead to good design and construction practices.
41
x12 Better public education of hazards posed by nonstructural items in an earthquake could lead to good design and construction practices.
42
x13 Punishment of design professionals and contractors or others associated with non‐compliant buildings or facilities could lead to good design and construction practices.
19
x14 Other (please specify) 3
Total
Appendix A, Electronic Survey Results, All Disciplines Page A‐58
43. Rank the effectiveness of enhancing enforcement of the current standards
# Answer %
1 High probability of increasing compliance 67%
2 Medium probability of increasing compliance 28%
3 Low probability of increasing compliance 5%
Total 100%
44. In cases where nonstructural items are not adequately anchored and braced for earthquake loads, what are the primary factors that could lead to good design and construction practices?
Text Response
To collaborate early on in the design process with the contractor and the engineer
requirements and design contained in the plans and specs
Training
education of design processionals building code requirements
Inspection list
control and professional training
Better education of designers
Provide a code which is technically correct but easier to read and enforce. Provide a "cookbook" approach for standard items such as piping, ductwork, equipment, transformers, etc. which can be
Appendix A, Electronic Survey Results, All Disciplines Page A‐59
implemented and enforced easily. Provide alternate guidelines for special cases or as an incentive for less costly alternatives.
45. You stated that enhancing the enforcement of the current standards would have a positive effect. How could enforcement of the standards be enhanced?
Text Response
more inspections
Better training and funding for education of Building Officials and staff
Building inspectors have to pay greater attention to these issues
By training building inspectors to look for and require that appropriate standards be followed
More time and resources for review of construction documents and more field oversight
Require prime professionals to be responsible for design of non structural bracing
Building Official familiarity with code requirements
Installation of certain non‐structural equipment would trigger new building inspections, even if the building already existed.
Require sign off from building inspector that NS seismic bracing has been completed. Require nonstructural seismic bracing observation by the engineer of record.
maybe by punishing the person that lets it pass by
inspections
better plan review and construction inspection
Uniform consistent enforcement by building departments and inspectors.
Don't issue building permit or occupancy permit until compliance occurs
Typically City and deputy inspectors do not understand the significance of proper anchorage and they often negligent. Good enforcement leads greater attention to the design, installation of anchorages. In California, health and education projects have high level enforcement but still there are cases where a better inspections and enforcement is desirable.
Deny building/occupancy permits until a design professional certifies in writing the non‐structural components comply with the seismic requirements of the Building Code and its referenced Standards.
Better education of code requirements and who is responsible for the designs
Trained plan checkers and building inspectors
EDUCATION OF PROFESSION AND BUILDING OFFICIALS
building inspections
Better Educated Inspectors who know what to look for
highly trained special inspectors required to be retained by the project owner/developer
Occupancy permit should be denied if nonstructural bracing is not adequately implemented
Appendix A, Electronic Survey Results, All Disciplines Page A‐60
Building Inspectors being educated to know what the standards are so that they can enforce the standards in the field.
By education.
No compliance = No permit
increased discussion on these issues; more education of professional, contractors and inspectors
Educating building inspectors
Anchorage of nonstructural items becomes a line‐item for the project inspector, and it is enforced.
Make sure all building inspectors are educated on this standard
Better plan review and required inspections
have penalties for non‐compliance
Better enforcement of QC/QA requirements of IBC Chapter 17. Note that many government clients in poorly regulated areas request designers to omit the provisions of chapter 17.
Building inspectors familiarity could be increased through education and they could target such connections and do various "field tests" that ensure proper installation.
Enforcement by Building Official ‐ Plan Reviewer.
Owners of non‐compliant buildings would have to pay a fine, exceeding the cost of compliance.
Job site inspections
thru the local building departments and the state
Specified requirements as part of the project construction documents
Making sure that the regulatory agency personnel know what is required.
make it more required/mandatory
If it is written, then the chances of it being enforced are very good. We have the personnel to do the job.
periodic inspection to maintain certificate of occupancy
properly educate plan reviewers and inspectors about standards
Building Inspectors Enforcement
Improve education amongst plan reviewers and inspectors.
Making clear the requirements, and whether special inspection of these items is mandatory
Require the code to be adhered to.
Put them into the body of the code
Education of the local jurisdictions Building Depts.
The prime design professional must help coordinate contract documents from the design team members to ensure compliance with standards.
Building Inspector training
Educating the inspectors and increasing penalties.
We already have enhanced enforcement so things can't get much better except for those who do work without permits
Appendix A, Electronic Survey Results, All Disciplines Page A‐61
Training of building department staff, both in plan review and inspection
Don't know
Inspector issue stop work orders in the field
high enforcement with penalties of not approving project to proceed
Increased education of design professionals, contractors and Building regulatory staff
Train inspection departments using ICC chapters
Non approval, no occupancy.
educate regulators such as plans examiners and building inspectors
Better code regulations and training of the building inspectors.
plan check official
Training or certification of inspection firms
Fines
Plan checker review
The standards to be adopted by local codes
Provide a simpler code
46. Rank the effectiveness reducing financial constraints associated with compliance.
# Answer %
1 High probability of increasing compliance 25%
2 Medium probability of increasing compliance 57%
3 Low probability of increasing compliance 17%
Total 100%
Appendix A, Electronic Survey Results, All Disciplines Page A‐62
47. You stated that reducing financial constraints associated with compliance would have a positive effect. What financial constraints make compliance difficult?
Text Response
added costs/red tape
Lack of dedicated compensation associated with this work for design professionals, cost of inspection associated with compliance.
unclear bid documents, lack of cost allocation for this work
Perceived costs of installation AND the "time" costs of maintenance of the non‐structural measures as internal configurations change
Professional design fees
There are no insurance savings or construction trade offs given for proper seismic design, except on fire sprinkler systems.
The cheaper it is to comply the more likely the owner will spend the money to comply
Design costs and construction costs
It's simple. If something costs less, more people will do it.
If it is difficult to design, then it is difficult to construct and will cost more money. Simple connection designs will help make everything cheaper and this will make installers want to comply.
cost
Giving a cost incentive for permitting or by insurance underwriters
budgets are only to construct
Allocation of budget to low profile elements which are not as visual and glamour to other architectural and structural features.
If a Section in a code book is well written to require seismic restraints for equipment, then it not cost the enforcing agency anything extra to enforce a section in their code book that they already enforce..
time involved in detail design and labor and materials for installation
Reduction of Insurance Premiums
cost of design and installation
expense
Owners do not want to spend any money that they absolutely do not have to spend.
Generally financial constraints slow all compliance factors
Budget saving or profit pursuit could be the problem.
The cost of design and installation, when not needed.
Appendix A, Electronic Survey Results, All Disciplines Page A‐63
48. In your opinion, how could the financial burden associated with code compliance be reduced?
Text Response
Provide guidelines for professional fees associated with nonstructural component bracing design. Rationalize inspection requirements.
line item bidding of bracing, consistent code enforcement
Part is the cost of time for the identification ‐ pre‐construction completion ‐ of what the "inside" of the building will look like
See above
Provide insurance savings and construction tradeoffs, when you can demonstrate seismic compliance.
I really have no idea. Perhaps reducing insurance costs for compliant buildings would help
Keep codes simpler.
do not know
If it is used more, then manufacturers could see higher volume and reduce upfront costs
maybe mandatory code
Don't know
Better education of the relevant codes, to all parties involved Inspectors, architects, engineers, etc.
These kind of things just take time energy and resources. Don't know how to get around that.
don’t know
It's all about the bottom line for contractors
Don't know
Provide a simpler code, with reasonable basic anchoring hardware.
Appendix A, Electronic Survey Results, All Disciplines Page A‐64
49. Rank the effectiveness creating incentives for compliance.
# Answer %
1 High probability of increasing compliance 36%
2 Medium probability of increasing compliance 52%
3 Low probability of increasing compliance 11%
Total 100%
50. You mentioned that creating incentives for compliance would have a positive effect. Do you know of any existing incentive programs?
# Answer %
1 Yes 2%
2 No 98%
Total 100%
Appendix A, Electronic Survey Results, All Disciplines Page A‐65
51. How could an incentive plan be structured?
Text Response
Insurers and lenders probably would benefit from reduced damage due to increased compliance. Jurisdictions could meet with insurers and lenders to develop incentive programs
To affect insurance rates or tax rates
bid process improvement
Carrot of even have "model" non‐structural offices similar to the Green Business program
subsistence fees
tax credits for residential, insurance incentives,
Don't Know
reduction of insurance rates or repayment of a performance bond to this effect required prior to obtaining a bldg permit
Insurance premiums should account for nonstructural bracing
Not sure
Percentage credit of permit fees when in compliance
Insurance pricing would be good.
no thoughts
Insurance savings
Give tax benefits or reduce insurance rates.
permit cost incentives
Don't know
Don't know
The question never came up before, but it’s a good question. I'm sure with some thought I'd would be able to come with something.
no
through ISO maybe
Based on a percentage of costs for compliance
Reduced insurance premiums
Appendix A, Electronic Survey Results, All Disciplines Page A‐66
52. Rank the effectiveness assessing penalties for non‐compliance.
# Answer %
1 High probability of increasing compliance 33%
2 Medium probability of increasing compliance 52%
3 Low probability of increasing compliance 14%
Total 100%
Appendix A, Electronic Survey Results, All Disciplines Page A‐67
53. You stated that assessing penalties for non‐compliance would have a positive effect. Is the existing plan approval process adaptable?
# Answer %
1 Yes 65%
2 No 35%
Total 100%
54. In your opinion, how should penalties be structured?
Text Response
Re inspection fees for not following restraint designs on the plans
fines go up by number of offenses
None
Don't issue necessary permits
Deny permits and then increase fees for resubmittal.
Not sure
Don't Know
Appendix A, Electronic Survey Results, All Disciplines Page A‐68
Fines.
Based on the importance factor of the facility.
fine the owner/contractor for incompliance
Don't Know
Certificate of occupancy is not issued until all nonstructural items are taken care of.
be enforced
The plan approval process varies widely from state to state and from city to city. Penalties should depend on seismic zone.
non‐issuance of building permit or C of O
don't know
Depending on the type of construction. I.E. High‐rice buildings and Assemblies should have higher penalties. Down to single dwellings being the lowest priority.
based on the cost of compliance
Increasing amounts for # of violations.
No building could receive a final unless full compliance was established
established by Building Official or authority having jurisdiction
set a dollar amount for each non compliant item.
civil penalties would be in place for non compliance in the case of a seismic event; public needs to be educated that penalties exist
No CO
Appendix A, Electronic Survey Results, All Disciplines Page A‐69
55. Rank the effectiveness of clearly defining who is responsible for compliance in the standards and codes.
# Answer %
1 High probability of increasing compliance 52%
2 Medium probability of increasing compliance 44%
3 Low probability of increasing compliance 4%
Total 100%
Appendix A, Electronic Survey Results, All Disciplines Page A‐70
56. Rank the effectiveness creating a certification for individuals responsible for ensuring compliance.
# Answer %
1 High probability of increasing compliance 35%
2 Medium probability of increasing compliance 45%
3 Low probability of increasing compliance 20%
Total 100%
Appendix A, Electronic Survey Results, All Disciplines Page A‐71
57. Who needs to be certified so that compliance will be ensured?
# Answer %
1 Architect 51%
2 Structural engineer 58%
3 Civil engineer 19%
4 Mechanical engineer 47%
5 Electrical engineer 40%
6 General contractor 40%
7 Building subcontractor 26%
8 Equipment manufacturer 21%
9 Equipment supplier 21%
10 Supplier or installer of specialty seismic bracing devices
35%
11 Building inspector 65%
12 Building plan reviewer 47%
13 Construction project manager 23%
14 Overall design project manager 23%
15 Other (please specify) 7%
Appendix A, Electronic Survey Results, All Disciplines Page A‐72
58. What qualifications would be necessary for a person to be certified?
Text Response
Test for specific code knowledge
familiarity with equipment and with codes or regulations
technical expertise
SOMEONE on a project would need to be certified... For smaller residential buildings, it might be the general contractor, and for larger jobs, the architect. The important part is that at least one person be certified on each job site.
go thru a licensing process like contractors do
For Inspectors: good knowledge of the requirements; for Design professionals: detailed understanding of the Code design requirements and sufficient education/experience on the subject; for inspectors: Higher level of training and education of the design and enforcement requirements.
Test to demonstrate a high level of knowledge of the seismic requirements of the Code.
engineering background with testing specific to seismic design
Don't know
EDUCATION AND TESTING
testing
Familiarity with the various codes, substantial knowledge of earthquake engineering, experience(extensive).
testing
Not sure
a clue
completion of appropriate training and/or hands‐on experience
course work
knowledge
familiarity with all types of systems
Training
background education and specific training
Training and code knowledge of required seismic restraints
Education, Familiarity
ability to pass an exam
Appendix A, Electronic Survey Results, All Disciplines Page A‐73
Possibly a certification from ICC or local code enforcement authority
Specific tested knowledge in the specific field
Don't Know
Attend a periodic training on seismic code requirements (every 5 yrs.)
Trade knowledge
Don't know
to be engineer
special education coursework
pass certification exam, obtain training certificate for related topics
Appendix A, Electronic Survey Results, All Disciplines Page A‐74
59. Rank the effectiveness creating earthquake insurance incentives to stimulate compliance.
# Answer %
1 High probability of increasing compliance 37%
2 Medium probability of increasing compliance 52%
3 Low probability of increasing compliance 12%
Total 100%
60. You stated that by creating earthquake insurance incentives to stimulate compliance would have a positive effect. How might such earthquake insurance incentives be structured?
Text Response
Require insurance coverage to acknowledge responsibility for design and inspection compliance
Building Department Approved plans submitted to insurer to document compliance
Make regular insurance policies give better coverage for certain types of damage. Earthquake insurance is too rare and too expensive.
In particular, I was thinking about a role for the CEA.
Appendix A, Electronic Survey Results, All Disciplines Page A‐75
Cheaper rates to owner of building if a special earthquake certificate was granted and show to insurance company
unknown
discounts
Don't know
Reduced rates for buildings that have gone through a check and remediation process
Insurance premiums should vary depending on the extent of nonstructural components and the compliance with bracing for these components
Lower premiums for having the bracing in place.
Importance factor of the facility.
Overall $ always makes the owner more interested
the insurance co. would inspect and rank the structure with the highest rating receiving the best incentive
Money talks. Better than penalties for non‐compliance.
Code compliance or better equates with reduced insurance rates.
lower premiums; rebates
Insurance breaks for buildings that a PE or SE has signed off on as being compliant
Compliant buildings have lower insurance rates. Non compliant buildings have higher insurance rates.
reduced premiums
According to seismic zones, the probability of property damage.
Lower premiums for compliance
cost breaks in policies
don't know
Something similar to requiring sill anchors for houses for better premium rate.
The insurance company would hire a third party specialist to review the design and inspect the project.
Reduced premiums
In California, earthquake insurance is not even an option. The premium is very high, the deductible is prohibitive. After the Northridge earthquake the insurance company determinates How much you should be insured for and what is your deductible. Many home owners would go bankrupt before been able to pay the deductible.
lower rates for proven compliance
Better compliance = lower insurance rate
Credits based on level of compliance and rated by third party.
Require compliance for insurance policy
A clearly defined and measurable savings for the building owner of a compliant building
insurers would need to perform their own inspections prior to insuring
Reduced cost to the owner
Appendix A, Electronic Survey Results, All Disciplines Page A‐76
A discount on Owner insurance rates
61. Rank the effectiveness of requiring budgeting of nonstructural seismic work in the bid process.
# Answer %
1 High probability of increasing compliance 34%
2 Medium probability of increasing compliance 50%
3 Low probability of increasing compliance 16%
Total 100%
Appendix A, Electronic Survey Results, All Disciplines Page A‐77
62. Rank the effectiveness of providing detailed design standards to assist in the process of complying.
# Answer %
1 High probability of increasing compliance 49%
2 Medium probability of increasing compliance 41%
3 Low probability of increasing compliance 10%
Total 100%
63. You mentioned that providing detailed design standards to assist in the process of complying would have a positive effect. What, if any, detailed design standards do you know of?
Text Response
Industry and manufacturer's standards and FEMA and ASCE standards provide complete data
none
SMANCA, NUSIG, many specific manufacturer standards. Most are not 100% complete to cover all situations which is part of the problem. SMACNA is based on old code.
The FEMA guidance document is not all that specific. Specific standards with clear instructions such as occurs for anchorage of hot water heaters
SMACNA & other proprietary "pre‐engineered" systems; but often not complete enough to cover all
Appendix A, Electronic Survey Results, All Disciplines Page A‐78
conditions
There are several for specific industries and situations. Yes, they are very thorough.
I do not know any. However, in my opinion, the current design requirements, specifications are too restrictive and complicated and not clear. It is due to the fact that design requirements have been formulated and greatly influenced few professionals who are experts in heavy industrial, power generating facilities but who do not understand the behavior of typical and more common structures. It is my opinion that, the design requirements have unreasonably high magnitudes without proper justification. They need to be geared towards more common/typical structures and better/clearer classification of items to be anchored & their seismic design factors. This would provide better and more economical anchorages for typical/common structures. It (importance factors for non‐structural elements) can be accordingly adjusted upwards for critical structures/facilities. This is the current intent of the code but the current starting level of design loads are unreasonably (without any proper justification for it) high where it leads to unnecessary heavy anchorage design and framing.
Loos & Co., Inc. Manual of Code Compliance Guidelines for Earthquake Resistance of Architectural, Mechanical and Electrical Components and Systems
none that I know of...but the OPA's approved by OSHPD are typically useless in my opinion since they are not design procedures
OSHPD Pre‐Approvals, generally complete
No
Don't know
Anchorage of cladding systems to structural supports
AWWA standards for water utilities.
The pipe, conduit, duct bracing requirements are still not clear enough. To simplify this for everyone there should be good clarity on which size items need bracing, what if there is a bunch of items on a trapeze, etc. To make this truly useful, though it needs to be extremely simple so the use of charts and graphs is minimized. A NUSIG type document, except simpler, and including good details should be available through FEMA or ASCE. I believe that the EOR would still have to "own" the use of such a document, and all stakeholders in the construction process will have to be well educated that it is not a "cookbook".
none that are easy to follow and clearly laid out
I consider the provisions of the IBC/ASCE 7 to be complete. However, they are difficult to understand, poorly referenced in the remainder of the code, and located in sections of the publications that are rarely visited by design professionals.
no
no
SMACNA standard would work for ducts (book). As for equipment, usually the manufactures installation instruction would have details on seismic restrains.
I am aware only of the code which is often very poorly written.
Anchorage detailing on plans of non‐structural items: ie. lighting, HVAC equip., shelving, etc.
Suspended ceiling requirements in ASCE, ASTM and CISCA standards are pretty complete and
Appendix A, Electronic Survey Results, All Disciplines Page A‐79
prescriptive.
water heater bracing
T‐bar ceiling details from manufacturers
Standard details should be provided with supplementary job specific details. Above all a careful coordinating effort among the various design discipline is essential for the success of a project.
I don't know where to look for these standards, I just have used them in my experience
Detailed shop drawings with specs on installation.
Ceiling and HVAC standard details
There are a variety of standard details used, but they are not typically labeled as "seismic resistant"
No
no, none
Water heater bracing
example: DSA approved ceiling system details
My suggestion is to put specific design parameters in the International Building Code.
suspended ceilings, mep anchorage, cabinet anchorage, etc.
none
Design cut sheets
Don't know
IBC
The current design standards are too generic, requiring significant design effort for small items. Provide simpler code.
Appendix A, Electronic Survey Results, All Disciplines Page A‐80
64. Rank the effectiveness of increasing the availability of qualified specialty contractors to ensure compliance.
# Answer %
1 High probability of increasing compliance 25%
2 Medium probability of increasing compliance 57%
3 Low probability of increasing compliance 18%
Total 100%
65. You stated that an increase in the availability of qualified specialty contractors to ensure compliance would have a ${q://QID156/ChoiceGroup/SelectedChoices}. Are well‐qualified specialty contractors who can ensure comp...
# Answer %
1 Yes 48%
2 No 52%
Total 100%
Appendix A, Electronic Survey Results, All Disciplines Page A‐81
66. Rank the effectiveness of requiring equipment suppliers to design and install seismic anchorage and bracing systems.
# Answer %
1 High probability of increasing compliance 47%
2 Medium probability of increasing compliance 42%
3 Low probability of increasing compliance 11%
Total 100%
Appendix A, Electronic Survey Results, All Disciplines Page A‐82
67. Rank the importance of first hand knowledge of earthquake effects.
# Answer %
1 High probability of increasing compliance 42%
2 Medium probability of increasing compliance 50%
3 Low probability of increasing compliance 8%
Total 100%
Appendix A, Electronic Survey Results, All Disciplines Page A‐83
68. Rank the importance of regulatory issues in achieving compliance.
# Answer %
1 High probability of increasing compliance 31%
2 Medium probability of increasing compliance 59%
3 Low probability of increasing compliance 10%
Total 100%
Appendix A, Electronic Survey Results, All Disciplines Page A‐84
69. Rank the importance of design process issues in achieving compliance.
# Answer %
1 High probability of increasing compliance 39%
2 Medium probability of increasing compliance 52%
3 Low probability of increasing compliance 9%
Total 100%
Appendix A, Electronic Survey Results, All Disciplines Page A‐85
70. What is single most important action that you believe would result in widespread use of seismic bracing of nonstructural items, in a manner which conforms to codes and design guidelines?
Text Response
Better educate A/M/E/P design professionals and specialty subcontractors
Contractors have the perception that seismic anchorage requirements are overkill, thus not fully necessary.
No recommendation
Don't issue permits until compliance occurs
Re‐write the code to eliminate stupid provisions. Make the code "two level", one for life safety, and one for performance. Then, enforce the code. For performance, require certification (either via ASME stress check, or simplified but reliable cookbook methods. Omit the requirement for lateral bracing in most situations. Change the "12" rule for rod hangers.
major earthquake with significant nonstructural damage and then owner and public outcry
Reasonable level of design loads and better education of all parties involved with non‐structural components' anchorage.
Require a design professional to certify that the seismic design/installation of the non‐structural components complies with the requirements of the Code.
placing the responsibility directly in the hands of the professional or record and not in the hands of contractors or product manufacturers
Owner's education
Established standards
Increase plan reviewer and building inspector education.
building inspection
Clearly define who is responsible for designing seismic bracing of what non structural items.
Owners of buildings should be required to provide a detailed nonstructural bracing program prior to receiving a building permit and the certificate of occupancy for the buildings should not be granted unless all items of the program are verified.
Education
Education by seminars and workshops.
cost
Make is a governing code
After education, have in place well structured guidelines with a ranking system in each of several categories, and insurance rates tied directly thereto. If people know the "cost benefit ratio" of each item, they will do what they can, even if they can't do it all.
Education of those responsible for design and installation.
Appendix A, Electronic Survey Results, All Disciplines Page A‐86
Specific design fees
Make it part of the equipment being installed
If building officials would deny building permits if seismic restraints are not indicated on the plans.
Fully detailed designs in the drawings and complete and accurate seismic performance requirements in the specifications.
Have a specific chapter in the building code that addresses it.
education of designers, owners, inspectors, insurance agents, and the general public
Including it in the original scope of services
Education of the design community, owners, and contractors of the requirements and the benefits.
A large earthquake that causes lots of damage
Clearer language in building and MEP codes delegating responsibility for design and specifying QC/QA requirements.
Make these requirements a high priority in building officials offices. Don't give permits or final acceptance in the field without code conformity.
Enforcement by Building Official.
Strict code enforcement.
Training ‐ certification
design requirements for permitting
building codes
Safety of personnel during an earthquake and Life Safety equipment would still function
Require that bracing details be clearly shown on plans
Certify the design architect, engineer and the installation contractor.
showing lack of compliance would cause severe damage
Incentives for compliance
Adding Sections in the Mechanical Codes dealing with seismic restraints. Right now the Mechanical Code wording on seismic restraints is very weak or non‐existent.
Educating building owners of the potential liability from death or injury from non‐conforming seismic bracing.
Inspections by Building Inspectors, Contractors, Architects, Specialty Installers, etc. of detailed anchorage requirements.
Enforcement in the plan check and inspection stages.
more training for design engineers
Education Outreach!
A major intensive educational campaign directed at this issue to the design, enforcement and installation professionals.
Appendix A, Electronic Survey Results, All Disciplines Page A‐87
Education as to the requirements
Education
education of the possible injuries & deaths that could be caused by not anchoring these items properly
Education of local AHj's
Simplifying the standards to a one size fits all
public education
not having rules be too long like this survey
Clarify and simplify confusing code provisions, notably ASCE 7 standards
A certificate of compliance from architect team that such bracing have been reviewed and in general compliance with the contract document
litigation
Consolidate applicable technical standards and have typical details to import on to the plans.
Simple/understandable standards/details.
Ease of use, low cast to install, quickly to be done.
Insurance companies require it.
Proper design and adequate inspection will solve the problem for permitted installations ‐ something we do now. The only problem in our city is those that install equipment without permits.
Building departments and plan reviewers requiring these items to be specified before approval of plans.
Education and codes
Don't know
Stop work orders
educate designers, contractors, owners, and inspectors
Education
Supply free training to all Building departments and require the Design community to attend training as part of their license renewal. We have design people submit work based on the 1994 codes and have never purchased a new code. Also designers are always reassured to reduce costs by owner. So requirements for designers to include these designs for a building would help.
educate the folks building the building
Appendix A, Electronic Survey Results, All Disciplines Page A‐88
Educate design professionals, regulators (plans examiners and inspectors), equipment suppliers, and general contractors of the specific requirements; have code requirements that are required to be stated on the plans
Training.
providing an approved complete design with specific details that reflect the actual construction being used as part of the plans and specs
Training certification requirements for engineers, contractors & inspectors
insurance underwriters requiring it
Law
Regulatory issues
training
Education and enforcement
Provide a simpler "cookbook" type code. The code needs to be easily read and understood by design professionals, contractors, and code officials.
Appendix B, Structural Engineers Page B‐1
Identification of Methods to Achieve Successful Implementation of Nonstructural and Equipment Seismic Restraints
Appendix B Structural Engineers Electronic Survey Results 1.0 Introduction
This appendix provides a summary of data gathered from structural engineers, using the on line Qualtrics survey tool. Questions are listed in the order that they appeared to respondents.
2. In the previous question you selected the option: Structural Engineer
3. How many years have you been employed
# Answer Average Value Standard Deviation
1 Years 20.24 13.09
Total 20.24 13.09
4. What is the primary state in which you do most of your business?
# Answer Response %
1 California 32 56%
2 Utah 17 30%
3 Washington 2 4%
4 Other (please name) 6 11%
Total 57 100%
Appendix B, Structural Engineers Page B‐2
5. In what state do you reside?
# Answer %
1 California 60%
2 Utah and Washington 34%
3 Washington 6%
Total 100%
6. What is the highest level of education you have achieved?
# Answer Response %
1 Less than high school 0 0%
2 High school graduate or equivalent 0 0%
3 Trade/Technical school graduate (please specify your area of study)
0 0%
4 Some college 0 0%
5 College graduate (please specify your major field of study)
19 33%
6 Post‐graduate degree (master's, doctoral, other) (please specify your degree and area of study)
38 67%
Total 57 100%
Trade/Technical school graduate (please specify your area of study)
College graduate (please specify your major field of study)
Post‐graduate degree (master's, doctoral, other) (please specify your degree and area of study)
BSCE M.S. Civil Engineering ‐ Structural
Civil Engineering Ph.D.
Appendix B, Structural Engineers Page B‐3
Civil Engineer PhD Civil Engineering
BSCE Master's in structural
Civil Engineering master's in Structural Engineering
B.S., Structural Engineering Masters, structural engineering
Civil Engineering MSCE, MBA Project Management
engineering PhD ‐ Structures
Civil Engineering MS Structural Eng.
architectural engineering MS Structures UC Berkeley
Civil Engineering Structural Emphasis
MSCE
building engineering MS
BS civil engineering MS CE, structural engineering
Civil Engineering MS Structural Engineering
BS in Civil Engineering Masters ‐ Structural Engineering
B.S. Architectural Engineering
Master's Structural eng
Civil Engineering Master's
Structural Engineering Master's‐Structural Engineering
Master's Structural Eng.
MS Structural Engineering
M.S. ‐ Structural Engineering
Masters ‐ structural
Masters in Civil Engineering ‐ Structural Focus
MBA
MS Structural Eng
Masters
MS Structural
MS Civil Engineering
Masters in Structural Engineering
MBA
architectural eng'ing
MS, structural engng
MS Civil Engineering
Civil Engineering
Appendix B, Structural Engineers Page B‐4
7. Please identify the types of structures or facilities with which you have experience. Check one or more categories as is applicable.
# Answer Response %
1 Federal Government buildings 22 39%
2 Local or State Government buildings 25 44%
3 Emergency Services, Fire, Police 20 35%
4 Healthcare 28 49%
5 Utilities 18 32%
6 K‐12 Schools 23 40%
7 Universities 27 47%
8 Office and Commercial 48 84%
9 Industrial 41 72%
10 Residential 32 56%
11 High Occupancy, convention centers 14 25%
12 Others (please list) 6 11%
Others (please list)
Bridges
Recreational
Historic structures of archaic materials
Water and Waste Water
Water treatment facilities
sport facilities, jails
Statistic Value
Total Responses 57
Appendix B, Structural Engineers Page B‐5
8. How many years experience do you have in your profession? (Please indicate below)
# Answer Average Value Standard Deviation
1 Years 20.31 12.99
Total 20.31 12.99
9. Have you ever been in an earthquake?
# Answer Response %
1 Yes 46 81%
2 No 11 19%
Total 57 100%
10. Are you familiar with any codes, design guidelines, or standards that govern the installation of nonstructural and equipment seismic restraints in buildings
# Answer Response %
1 Yes 47 82%
2 No 10 18%
Total 57 100%
11. Please list the codes that you are familiar with:
#1 #2 #3 #4 #5
International Building Code
ASCE 7 SMACNA ASCE 41
1997 UBC ASCE 7 ‐ 05
ASCE 7‐05 CBC 2007 IBC 2006 UBC 1997 AISC Steel Construction Manual
IBC ‐current and past
ASCE‐7 ‐ current and past
UBC ‐ past editions
BOCA ‐ past editions
SBC ‐ past editions
UBC '97 IBC '06 FEMA 356 ASCE 7 ASCE 41
2006 IBC ASCE7‐05
Appendix B, Structural Engineers Page B‐6
California Building Code
ASCE 7‐05 Seismic Restrain Manual by SMACNA
CBC ASCE AISC ACI NDS
ASCE 7 2005 CBC 2007 IBC 2006 NDS AISC
1997 UBC 2006 IBC ASCE‐7 older version of UBC and IBC
Uniform Building Code (1973‐1997)
International Building Code (2000‐2006)
ASCE 7.02, 7.05 California Building Code 1998, 2001, 2007
CBC 2007 IBC 2006 + Referenced standards
CBC 2001 UBC 1997 UBC 1994
"61 ‐ "97 UBC "00 ‐ "06 IBC FEMA 178 ‐ ASCE 31
ATC 33 ‐ ASCE 41 Los Angeles City Building Code
UBC, 1997 and earlier
ASCE 7 IBC NEHRP Provisions
SEAOC Bluebook NFPA‐13
ASCE 7‐05 ASCE 31 ASCE 41 NFPA 13
ASCE 7 FEMA 356 ASCE 31 ASCE 41 FEMA design Guides
California Building Code (multiple versions)
International Building Code
ASCE 7‐05 NFPA SMACNA
UBC ASCE 7 RMI IBC
IBC UBC CBC ALA
CBC 2007, IBC 2006, ASCE 7‐05 etc
Title 24 Past UBC codes & Title 24
97 UBC
ASCE 7‐05 California Building Code
Uniform Building Code
Title 24, California Building Code
IBC
IBC UBC
CBC ASCE IBC
IBC 2006 ASCE 07 ACI 318 & 530 AISC 360 & 341 NDS
1997 UBC ASCE 7‐05 ASCE 41‐06
Appendix B, Structural Engineers Page B‐7
International Building Code
ASCE 7
ASCE 07
ASCE 7‐05 IBC 06
IBC 2006 ASCE/SEI 31‐03
NEHRP Provisions UBC IBC SMACNA ASCE 31
IBC2006
IBC ASCE 7 TI 809‐04
ASCE 7‐05 IBC 2006 ACI 318‐05 Appendix D
ASME B31.3 2002 (somewhat)
ASCE 7 ‐ 05 and 02 UBC 1997
IBC 2006 IBC 2003 Oregon Structural Specialty Code
CBC 2007
IBC ASCE 7 ASCE 31 ASCE 41
IBC/ASCE 7
ASCE 7 IBC 2006 SMACNA
Los Angeles Building Code
ASCE 7‐05 Chapter 13
ASCE 7 IBC 2006 1997 UBC
IBC ASCE 7
12. Please indicate how familiar you are with the following codes:
# Question 1‐ Not at all
familiar
2‐ Somewhat familiar
3‐ Moderately familiar
4‐ Very Familiar
5‐ Extremely familiar
Responses Mean
1 The International Building Code
0 1 11 31 14 57 4.02
2
ASCE 7‐05 (Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and Other Structures)
0 1 9 27 20 57 4.16
Appendix B, Structural Engineers Page B‐8
3
ASCE 31‐03 (Seismic Evaluation of Existing Buildings)
14 12 13 12 5 56 2.68
4 ASCE 41‐06 25 10 5 10 4 54 2.22
5 NFPA 38 11 1 1 0 51 1.31
Statistic The International Building Code
ASCE 7‐05 (Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and Other Structures)
ASCE 31‐03 (Seismic Evaluation of Existing
Buildings)
ASCE 41‐06
NFPA
Mean 4.02 4.16 2.68 2.22 1.31
Variance 0.52 0.56 1.71 1.95 0.38
Standard Deviation
0.72 0.75 1.31 1.40 0.62
Total Responses
57 57 56 54 51
13. When constructing a building, are you required to abide by:
# Question Yes No I Don't Know
Responses Mean
1 The International Building Code 56 0 0 56 1.00
2 ASCE 7‐05 (Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and Other Structures)
53 0 1 54 1.04
3 ASCE 31‐03 (Seismic Evaluation of Existing Buildings) 5 28 18 51 2.25
4 ASCE 41‐06 4 24 24 52 2.38
5 NFPA 6 13 31 50 2.50
Statistic The International Building Code
ASCE 7‐05 (Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and Other Structures)
ASCE 31‐03 (Seismic Evaluation of Existing
Buildings)
ASCE 41‐06
NFPA
Mean 1.00 1.04 2.25 2.38 2.50
Variance 0.00 0.07 0.39 0.40 0.50
Standard Deviation
0.00 0.27 0.63 0.63 0.71
Total 56 54 51 52 50
Appendix B, Structural Engineers Page B‐9
14. What are the penalties for noncompliance with The Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and Other Structures (ASCE 7‐05)? (Please respond in the box below. If you do not know what the penalties are, then write 'Don't Know'.
Text Response
Cannot procure a permit (theoretically), exposure to claims
Depends ‐ can lose privilege to practice as an engineer
don't know
Don't know
Don't know
'Don't Know'
Don't Know
Don't know
'Don't Know'
Cannot get building permit
civil penalties (lawsuits)
None ‐ though you may not get a building permit
Projects that don’t comply are not approved, field inspectors will stop projects for not compliance if under construction
No Building Permit will be issued
Loss of license to practice structural engineering
Are we talking about a new building, a retrofit? Are we talking about "penalties" in the IBC/ASCE 7, or in the CAC?
Will not get a building permit. Could be legal penalties if found negligent.
loss of license, liability
don't know
Compliance with the IBC is required. Compliance with ASCE 7 is only as referenced by the IBC.
Don't know
Don’t know
Don't Know
Don't Know
Don't Know
Appendix B, Structural Engineers Page B‐10
Don't Know
DOPL Reprimand
don't know
Civil litigation and disciplinary action by the state license board
Don't Know
Don't Know
you could lose your license
Design is not according to code
Don't Know
Penalties could be loss of license or loss in a law suit. Most likely none. ASCE 7 is part of the CBC
Potential suspension or revoking of license
The building permit will be denied. In extreme cases of gross negligence or repeated noncompliance, a complaint can be filed and the engineer's license can be suspended or revoked.
No building permit shall be issued
Increased engineering time during construction and design
You don't get a building Permit. Other than that, I don't know.
Don't know
Varies pending degree of non‐compliance, stage of project, and who's prosecuting.
Death by hanging.
Liability risk ‐ don't know of code "penalties"
don't know
Compliance is required before building permit can be issued.
no permit
don't know
Different seismic design response coefficients, spectral mapped acceleration, anchorage force requirements
Don't know
Appendix B, Structural Engineers Page B‐11
15. What are the penalties for noncompliance with The International Building Code?
Text Response
Exposure to claim, cannot procure a building permit
Depends ‐ can lose privilege to practice as an engineer
don't know
Redesign
Don't know specifically, possibly disciplinary action
'Don't Know'
Don't Know
Don’t know
'Don't Know'
Cannot get building permit
civil lawsuits
No Civil penalties. Potential failure to get building permit. Potential litigation associated witn nonconformance with the standard of care
Projects that comply are not approved for construction during review, field inspectors will stop construction if noncompliance found at construction site
as adopted by the CBC it is required for building permit
loss of license to practice SE
see previous answers
Same as ASCE 7.
yes
don't know
Engineering License revoked and possible fines.
Don't know
don’t know
Don't know.
Don't Know
Loss of license, possible prosecution
Don't Know
DOPL Reprimand
don't know
Civil litigation and disciplinary action by the state license board
Appendix B, Structural Engineers Page B‐12
Don't know the exact penalty. I assume some kind of fine, never been fined yet.
Loss License
could lose your license
design is not according to code
Loss of professional license
Same as ASCE 7 above. It is most part of the CBC
Potential suspension or revoking of license
The same as for ASCE 7.
No building permit shall be issued
Everything gets design by an engineer if it over 500 lbs or over 20 lbs and 5ft off the ground
You don't get a building permit. Other than that, I don't know
Disciplinary actions if someone catches you or there is a failure
Varies pending degree of non‐compliance, stage of the project, and who's prosecuting.
Liability risk, denial of building permit.
Violators will be subject to penalties as prescribed by law.
Building permit will not be issued until compliance is demonstrated.
no permit
failure to receive permit
basis of permit cannot be violated
fines, disciplinary actions
16. Are you aware of any specific suggested nonstructural seismic restraint guidelines produced by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA)?
# Answer Response %
1 Yes 23 41%
2 No 33 59%
Total 56 100%
Appendix B, Structural Engineers Page B‐13
17. Please list any other resources you are aware of for guidance in nonstructural seismic restraint design:
Text Response
ATC
Seismic Restrain Manual by SMACNA
ASTM, CISCA
FEMA 74
NFPA‐13, SMACNA Guidelines
NEHRP 2003
FEMA 450, FEMA 357 ‐ ASCE 41, FEMA 310 ‐ ASCE 31
SMACNA, proprietary system catalogs (Mason, Hilti, ISAT, et al.)
ASCE 31 and 41 were originally funded by FEMA.
FEMA 356, FEMA 412,413.414
SMACNA, Industry‐specific guidelines, ASME code (the best)
OSHPD, SMACNA
SMACNA
Title 24, California Building Code
ASCE‐7
SMACNA manual, ASHRAE seismic design guidelines, Department of the Interior Nonstructural guidelines, Tri Services manuals
I know that NFPA‐13 has some guidelines for bracing of fire sprinkler lines, but I do not know the specifics.
NEHRP (National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program)
ASCE 31 FEMA 356
ATC 29, SEAONC, EERI Seminars
TI 809‐04, IBC, ASCE 7
Telcordia (Bellcore) Generic Requirement specifications for telecommunications equipment (not for restraints, for robust equipment) SEMI Guidelines ‐ for semiconductor equipment
ASCE 7‐05 provides the design loads. I'm not aware of any design guides though.
FEMA 413‐ Installing Seismic Restraints for Electrical Equipment
FEMA 450, FEMA 461, FEMA 412. FEMA 414, FEMA 395, FEMA 396, FEMA 397, FEMA 398, FEMA 399
California Building Code, FEMA 310
Appendix B, Structural Engineers Page B‐14
18. How important do you think earthquake safety standards for are to other professionals in the building community?
# Answer Response %
1 1‐ not at all important 1 2%
2 2 8 15%
3 3 10 19%
4 4‐ moderately important 16 30%
5 5 6 11%
6 6 7 13%
7 7‐ extremely important 6 11%
Total 54 100%
19. How important are nonstructural safety standards to you?
# Answer Response %
1 1‐ not at all important 1 2%
2 2 2 4%
3 3 1 2%
4 4‐ moderately important 2 4%
5 5 13 24%
6 6 16 30%
7 7‐ extremely important 19 35%
Total 54 100%
Appendix B, Structural Engineers Page B‐15
20. In your geographic area, how important is the installation of earthquake anchorage and the bracing of nonstructural items such as walls, ceilings, lighting fixtures, firewater piping, and ductwork?
# Answer Response %
1 1‐ not at all important 2 4%
2 2 2 4%
3 3 1 2%
4 4‐ moderately important 5 9%
5 5 8 15%
6 6 12 23%
7 7‐ extremely important 23 43%
Total 53 100%
Appendix B, Structural Engineers Page B‐16
21. In your geographic area, how important is the installation of seismic anchorage and the bracing of building components such as electrical transformers and electrical switchgear, and mechanical equipment.
# Answer Response %
1 1‐ not at all important 2 4%
2 2 2 4%
3 3 1 2%
4 4‐ moderately important 5 10%
5 5 6 12%
6 6 13 25%
7 7‐ extremely important 23 44%
Total 52 100%
22. In your geographic area, how important is the seismic anchorage and bracing design of facade elements, such as exterior panels and windows?
# Answer Response %
1 1‐ not at all important 2 4%
2 2 0 0%
3 3 5 9%
4 4‐ moderately important 3 6%
5 5 7 13%
6 6 11 21%
7 7‐ extremely important 25 47%
Total 53 100%
Appendix B, Structural Engineers Page B‐17
23. In your geographic area, how important is the seismic anchorage and bracing design of process equipment in an industrial facility or utility?
# Answer Response %
1 1‐ not at all important 2 4%
2 2 1 2%
3 3 1 2%
4 4‐ moderately important 4 8%
5 5 10 20%
6 6 13 25%
7 7‐ extremely important 20 39%
Total 51 100%
Statistic Value
Mean 5.71
Variance 2.33
Standard Deviation 1.53
Total Responses 51
24. If a major earthquake were to occur in your area and if nonstructural or equipment items (such as those defined earlier) were NOT anchored or braced in a building, to what extent do you believe injuries or death would result
# Answer Response %
1 Injuries or death definitely would not happen
0 0%
2 Injuries or death probably would not happen
4 8%
3 Injuries or death may or may not happen 6 12%
4 Injuries or death probably would happen 28 54%
5 Injuries or death definitely would happen 14 27%
Total 52 100%
Appendix B, Structural Engineers Page B‐18
25. If a major earthquake were to occur in your area and if equipment or nonstructural restraints were absent in a structure, to what extent do you believe that major damage would occur to the structure?
# Answer Response %
1 Major damage definitely would not happen
1 2%
2 Major damage probably would not happen
8 15%
3 Major damage may or may not happen 13 25%
4 Major damage probably would happen 18 35%
5 Major damage definitely would happen 12 23%
Total 52 100%
Appendix B, Structural Engineers Page B‐19
26. If a major earthquake were to occur in your area, to what extent do you believe that damage to nonstructural or equipment items could result in severe enough damage to cause major facility downtime?
# Answer %
1 Major facility downtime definitely would not happen 0%
2 Major facility downtime probably would not happen 4%
3 Major facility downtime may or may not happen 8%
4 Major facility downtime probably would happen 50%
5 Major facility downtime definitely would happen 38%
Total 100%
27. Which do you believe is more likely in your area (choose one):
# Answer Response %
1 Failure of, or significant damage to, nonstructural elements and systems during a moderate earthquake
47 90%
2 Structural collapse during a moderate earthquake
5 10%
Total 52 100%
Appendix B, Structural Engineers Page B‐20
28. In your opinion, when a structure is to be built, who is responsible to be familiar with nonstructural seismic safety design standards? (Check all that apply)
# Answer Response %
1 Architect 44 85%
2 Structural engineer 45 87%
3 Civil engineer 18 35%
4 Mechanical engineer 45 87%
5 Electrical engineer 42 81%
6 General contractor 35 67%
7 Building subcontractor 32 62%
8 Equipment manufacturer 35 67%
9 Equipment supplier 32 62%
10 Supplier or installer of specialty seismic bracing devices
39 75%
11 Building inspector 46 88%
12 Building plan reviewer 40 77%
13 Construction project manager 28 54%
14 Overall design project manager 25 48%
15 Other (please specify) 6 12%
Appendix B, Structural Engineers Page B‐21
29. In your opinion, when a structure is to be built, who has the primary responsibility to be familiar with nonstructural seismic safety design standards? (Select one)
# Answer Response %
x1 Architect 11 23%
x2 Structural engineer 23 49%
x3 Civil engineer 0 0%
x4 Mechanical engineer 0 0%
x5 Electrical engineer 1 2%
x6 General contractor 1 2%
x7 Building subcontractor 0 0%
x8 Equipment manufacturer 0 0%
x9 Equipment supplier 0 0%
x10 Supplier or installer of specialty seismic bracing devices
3 6%
x11 Building inspector 3 6%
x12 Building plan reviewer 0 0%
x13 Construction project manager 0 0%
x14 Overall design project manager 3 6%
x15 Other (please specify) 2 4%
Total 47 100%
Appendix B, Structural Engineers Page B‐22
30. In your opinion, who have you found to be the most informed about nonstructural seismic safety design standards. (Select one)
# Answer Response %
1 Architect 1 2%
2 Structural engineer 37 77%
3 Civil engineer 0 0%
4 Mechanical engineer 0 0%
5 Electrical engineer 0 0%
6 General contractor 1 2%
7 Building subcontractor 0 0%
8 Equipment manufacturer 0 0%
9 Equipment supplier 1 2%
10 Supplier or installer of specialty seismic bracing devices
4 8%
11 Building inspector 0 0%
12 Building plan reviewer 3 6%
13 Construction project manager 0 0%
14 Overall design project manager 0 0%
15 Other (please specify) 1 2%
Total 48 100%
Appendix B, Structural Engineers Page B‐23
31. In your opinion, who have you found to be the least informed about nonstructural seismic safety design standards. (Select one)
# Answer %
1 Architect 28%
2 Structural engineer 0%
3 Civil engineer 4%
4 Mechanical engineer 2%
5 Electrical engineer 6%
6 General contractor 19%
7 Building subcontractor 11%
8 Equipment manufacturer 11%
9 Equipment supplier 4%
10 Supplier or installer of specialty seismic bracing devices
0%
11 Building inspector 0%
12 Building plan reviewer 2%
13 Construction project manager 2%
14 Overall design project manager 6%
15 Other (please specify) 4%
Total 100%
Appendix B, Structural Engineers Page B‐24
32. Who do you believe is responsible for compliance with nonstructural seismic safety design standards? [Please rank order your responses with a '1' representing the party most responsible for compliance, etc.]
# Answer 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Responses
1 Architect 12 8 2 4 3 1 1 0 2 3 2 0 0 0 0 38
2 Structural engineer 11 9 4 8 4 1 0 0 0 2 1 0 0 2 0 42
3 Civil engineer 0 1 1 2 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 3 2 2 1 16
4 Mechanical engineer 2 6 9 4 5 3 1 2 1 1 0 2 1 0 0 37
5 Electrical engineer 0 2 8 6 3 5 3 1 3 0 1 0 2 1 0 35
6 General contractor 7 3 1 6 8 1 4 4 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 36
7 Building subcontractor
0 1 5 2 4 2 0 3 3 3 2 0 1 1 0 27
8 Equipment manufacturer
2 1 7 3 0 2 1 2 2 2 2 3 1 1 0 29
9 Equipment supplier 1 2 0 6 2 1 1 2 5 4 1 2 2 0 0 29
10 Supplier or installer of specialty seismic bracing devices
4 3 6 3 4 4 3 5 1 1 3 0 0 0 0 37
11 Building inspector 3 6 2 3 3 5 7 4 4 1 0 1 0 0 0 39
12 Building plan reviewer
4 2 1 0 6 4 5 3 0 2 2 0 0 0 0 29
13 Construction project manager
0 2 0 2 1 3 3 2 5 0 2 3 1 0 0 24
Appendix B, Structural Engineers Page B‐25
33. In your opinion, who has ultimate responsibility to see that buildings are compliant with nonstructural seismic safety design standards? (Select one)
# Answer %
1 Architect 19%
2 Structural engineer 25%
3 Civil engineer 0%
4 Mechanical engineer 0%
5 Electrical engineer 0%
6 General contractor 6%
7 Building subcontractor 0%
8 Equipment manufacturer 0%
9 Equipment supplier 2%
10 Supplier or installer of specialty seismic bracing devices
6%
11 Building inspector 23%
12 Building plan reviewer 2%
13 Construction project manager 4%
14 Overall design project manager 6%
15 Other (please specify) 6%
Total 100%
Appendix B, Structural Engineers Page B‐26
34. Given that there are standards governing the correct installation of nonstructural and equipment seismic restraints in buildings, how well do you believe these standards are complied with in your building community?
# Answer %
1 1‐ never complied with 2%
2 2‐ sometimes complied with 53%
3 3‐ usually complied with 45%
4 4‐ always complied with 0%
Total 100%
35. What percentage of completed structures would you estimate meet nonstructural and equipment seismic restraint standards in your building community?
# Answer Average Value Standard Deviation
1 % meeting standards 47.96 24.42
Total 47.96 24.42
Appendix B, Structural Engineers Page B‐27
36. In cases where you believe nonstructural items in buildings and facilities have been designed and constructed with good seismic anchorage and bracing measures, why has this occurred? [Check all that apply]
# Answer %
1 The owner required and checked for compliance with these measures
46%
2 The government or other oversight group checked for compliance with these measures
54%
3 It was important to me in my professional capacity 58%
4 It was required for financing or insurance to be approved
15%
5 It was required before the contractor, subcontractor, and/or equipment suppliers could be paid
10%
6 It was required by design professionals 73%
7 Equipment suppliers provided anchorage kits for this purpose
19%
8 The specialty contractors knew what to do and performed this work correctly
40%
9 It was a bid item, and therefore had to be done for the contractor to be paid
27%
10 It is a strictly enforced provision 33%
11 Building inspectors enforce these measures 50%
12 It is done as a matter of standard practice in my profession
17%
13 The owner hired a specialist in this area to design and/or construct these measures
17%
14 It occurred for the work my firm was involved in, but not for others in the same facility
4%
15 Other (please specify) 0%
16 Other (please specify) 0%
17 Other (please specify) 0%
Appendix B, Structural Engineers Page B‐28
37. Please rank FIVE (5) from the list below in order of causal forces by dragging and dropping them to their respective order:
# Answer Responses
x1 The owner required and checked for compliance with these measures 17
x2 The government or other oversight group checked for compliance with these measures
20
x3 It was important to me in my professional capacity 24
x4 It was required for financing or insurance to be approved 6
x5 It was required before the contractor, subcontractor, and/or equipment suppliers could be paid
5
x6 It was required by design professionals 30
x7 Equipment suppliers provided anchorage kits for this purpose 7
x8 The specialty contractors knew what to do and performed this work correctly 18
x9 It was a bid item, and therefore had to be done for the contractor to be paid 10
x10 It is a strictly enforced provision 15
x11 Building inspectors enforce these measures 22
x12 It is done as a matter of standard practice in my profession 8
x13 The owner hired a specialist in this area to design and/or construct these measures 7
x14 It occurred for the work my firm was involved in, but not for others in the same facility 2
x15 Other (please specify) 0
x16 Other (please specify) 0
x17 Other (please specify) 0
Total
Appendix B, Structural Engineers Page B‐29
38. To the extent that you see noncompliance with nonstructural and equipment seismic restraint standards in your building community, why do you think the noncompliance occurs? (Check all that apply)
# Answer %
1 I have never seen compliance 4%
2 The likelihood of a damaging earthquake in this area is too low to justify complying with the standards.
11%
3 It's not against the law to fail to comply with the standards; compliance will happen when it's the law.
7%
4 It is too time consuming to comply with these standards.
20%
5 It is too expensive to comply with the standards. 33%
6 There is little regulatory enforcement of compliance with the standards.
49%
7 The standards are poorly designed. 11%
8 The standards are too difficult to understand. 24%
9 There is little incentive to comply with these standards.
24%
10 There is a lack of compensation for oversight compliance.
22%
11 No one is really interested in making sure the standards are complied with.
18%
12 No one is adequately trained to make sure the standards are complied with.
40%
13 There is a communication breakdown between everyone involved in constructing the building that contributes to noncompliance.
47%
14 There are liability concerns that prevent compliance. 0%
15 No one knows who is ultimately responsible for compliance.
51%
16 Everyone passes the buck to someone else, so compliance doesn't occur.
29%
17 Compliance just falls through the cracks. 33%
18 Penalties for noncompliance aren't severe enough to make compliance a high priority.
24%
19 Everyone just assumes someone else will make sure that compliance occurs.
44%
Appendix B, Structural Engineers Page B‐30
20 No one is qualified to certify compliance. 4%
21 The likely consequences of an earthquake in my area are to minimal to justify the cost and effort of compliance.
0%
22 Other (please specify) 9%
23 Other (please specify) 0%
24 Other (please specify) 0%
Other (please specify) Other (please specify)
Other (please specify)
older design standards
Mechanical or electrical subcontractors sometimes
Inadequate field coordination between sub‐trades may preclude full conformance.
Appendix B, Structural Engineers Page B‐31
39. Please rank order the reasons why you think noncompliance occurs. Include your own reasons in the ordering if you add any to the list. If there are more than five reasons in the list, rank only the top five. 1= Most important.
# Answer Responses
x1 I have never seen compliance 1
x2 The likelihood of a damaging earthquake in this area is too low to justify complying with the standards.
2
x3 2
x4 It is too time consuming to comply with these standards. 6
x5 It is too expensive to comply with the standards. 12
x6 There is little regulatory enforcement of compliance with the standards. 20
x7 The standards are poorly designed. 3
x8 The standards are too difficult to understand. 9
x9 There is little incentive to comply with these standards. 8
x10 There is a lack of compensation for oversight compliance. 8
x11 No one is really interested in making sure the standards are complied with. 4
x12 No one is adequately trained to make sure the standards are complied with. 13
x13 There is a communication breakdown between everyone involved in constructing the building that contributes to noncompliance.
17
x14 There are liability concerns that prevent compliance. 0
x15 No one knows who is ultimately responsible for compliance. 19
x16 Everyone passes the buck to someone else, so compliance doesn't occur. 9
x17 Compliance just falls through the cracks. 12
x18 Penalties for noncompliance aren't severe enough to make compliance a high priority. 10
x19 Everyone just assumes someone else will make sure that compliance occurs. 19
x20 No one is qualified to certify compliance. 1
x21 The likely consequences of an earthquake in my area are to minimal to justify the cost and effort of compliance.
0
x22 Other (please specify) 2
Other (please specify) Other (please specify)
Other (please specify)
When design drawings are not coordinated, contractor may find installation of bracing extremely difficult. Thus any field solution may be compromised.
Appendix B, Structural Engineers Page B‐32
40. Are you personally aware of buildings having been constructed in your area that were not compliant with nonstructural and equipment seismic safety design standards?
# Answer %
1 Yes 49%
2 No 51%
Total 100%
Appendix B, Structural Engineers Page B‐33
41. How prevalent is noncompliance?
# Answer %
1 Very common 29%
2 Occasional 67%
3 Rare 5%
Total 100%
Appendix B, Structural Engineers Page B‐34
42. In cases where nonstructural items are not adequately anchored and braced for earthquake loads, what are the primary factors that could lead to good design and construction practices? (Please check as many as applicable.)
# Answer %
1 New technical provisions in the building codes, i.e. improvement in the technical requirements, could lead to good design and construction practices.
43%
2 Stricter building codes enforcement could lead to good design and construction practices.
57%
3 Better education of design professionals could lead to good design and construction practices.
73%
4 Better education of owners could lead to good design and construction practices.
57%
5 Better education of contractors and equipment suppliers could lead to good design and construction practices.
68%
6 Design fees specifically allocated to this work could lead to good design and construction practices.
70%
7 More federal grants for mitigation of nonstructural hazards during remodels could lead to good design and construction practices.
7%
Appendix B, Structural Engineers Page B‐35
8 Better internal quality control by design professionals could lead to good design and construction practices.
36%
9
The creation of a new system, with specific professional licensing requirements for this type of work, could lead to good design and construction practices.
20%
10 Fairer enforcement of standards across all projects could lead to good design and construction practices.
18%
11 Financial incentives, such as reduced insurance costs, could lead to good design and construction practices.
43%
12 Better public education of hazards posed by nonstructural items in an earthquake could lead to good design and construction practices.
41%
13
Punishment of design professionals and contractors or others associated with non‐compliant buildings or facilities could lead to good design and construction practices.
18%
14 Other (please specify) 7%
Other (please specify)
Simplification of requirements, increased clarity in requirements and the goals of the requirements
Better bracing systems with simple to design connections to the structure. Minimal effect on the structural system = easier construction practices = simple installation = low cost = no reason not to comply.
Communication between design professional, contractor and inspector can ensure qualify work
Appendix B, Structural Engineers Page B‐36
43. Please rank these in order of their causal force by dragging them into their respective order:
# Answer Responses
x1 New technical provisions in the building codes, i.e. improvement in the technical requirements, could lead to good design and construction practices.
13
x2 Stricter building codes enforcement could lead to good design and construction practices.
18
x3 Better education of design professionals could lead to good design and construction practices.
26
x4 Better education of owners could lead to good design and construction practices. 20
x5 Better education of contractors and equipment suppliers could lead to good design and construction practices.
24
x6 Design fees specifically allocated to this work could lead to good design and construction practices.
26
x7 More federal grants for mitigation of nonstructural hazards during remodels could lead to good design and construction practices.
3
x8 Better internal quality control by design professionals could lead to good design and construction practices.
12
x9 The creation of a new system, with specific professional licensing requirements for this type of work, could lead to good design and construction practices.
9
x10 Fairer enforcement of standards across all projects could lead to good design and construction practices.
7
x11 Financial incentives, such as reduced insurance costs, could lead to good design and construction practices.
17
x12 Better public education of hazards posed by nonstructural items in an earthquake could lead to good design and construction practices.
15
x13 Punishment of design professionals and contractors or others associated with non‐compliant buildings or facilities could lead to good design and construction practices.
7
x14 Other (please specify) 2
Total
Appendix B, Structural Engineers Page B‐37
44. to 46 not applicable to SE’s.
47. Rank the effectiveness of education to increase familiarity with the standards.
# Answer %
1 High probability of increasing compliance 56%
2 Medium probability of increasing compliance 38%
3 Low probability of increasing compliance 7%
Total 100%
Appendix B, Structural Engineers Page B‐38
48. Who needs to be educated so that compliance will increase?
# Answer %
1 Architect 27%
2 Structural engineer 8%
3 Civil engineer 0%
4 Mechanical engineer 0%
5 Electrical engineer 0%
6 General contractor 8%
7 Building subcontractor 0%
8 Equipment manufacturer 0%
9 Equipment supplier 0%
10 Supplier or installer of specialty seismic bracing devices
8%
11 Building inspector 0%
12 Building plan reviewer 4%
13 Construction project manager 4%
14 Overall design project manager 4%
15 Owner 27%
16 Other (please specify) 12%
Total 100%
Appendix B, Structural Engineers Page B‐39
49. Rank the effectiveness of enhancing enforcement of the current standards.
# Answer %
1 High probability of increasing compliance 78%
2 Medium probability of increasing compliance 20%
3 Low probability of increasing compliance 2%
Total 100%
Appendix B, Structural Engineers Page B‐40
50. You stated that enhancing the enforcement of the current standards would have a positive effect. How could enforcement of the standards be enhanced?
Text Response
Building inspectors have to pay greater attention to these issues
By training building inspectors to look for and require that appropriate standards be followed
More time and resources for review of construction documents and more field oversight
Require prime professionals to be responsible for design of non structural bracing
Building Official familiarity with code requirements
Require sign off from building inspector that NS seismic bracing has been completed. Require nonstructural seismic bracing observation by the engineer of record.
better plan review and construction inspection
Uniform consistent enforcement by building departments and inspectors.
Typically City and deputy inspectors do not understand the significance of proper anchorage and they often negligent. Good enforcement leads greater attention to the design, installation of anchorages.In California, health and education projects have high level enforcement but still there are cases where a better inspections and enforcement is desirable.
Trained plan checkers and building inspectors
building inspections
Better Educated Inspectors who know what to look for
highly trained special inspectors required to be retained by the project owner/developer
Occupancy permit should be denied if nonstructural bracing is not adequately implemented
Building Inspectors being educated to know what the standards are so that they can enforce the standards in the field.
No compliance = No permit
increased discussion on these issues; more education of professional, contractors and inspectors
Educating building inspectors
Anchorage of nonstructural items becomes a line‐item for the project inspector, and it is enforced.
Better plan review and required inspections
have penalties for non‐compliance
Better enforcement of QC/QA requirements of IBC Chapter 17. Note that many government clients in poorly regulated areas request designers to omit the provisions of chapter 17.
Building inspectors familiarity could be increased through education and they could target such connections and do various "field tests" that ensure proper installation.
Enforcement by Building Official ‐ Plan Reviewer.
Appendix B, Structural Engineers Page B‐41
Owners of non‐compliant buildings would have to pay a fine, exceeding the cost of compliance.
Making sure that the regulatory agency personnel know what is required.
periodic inspection to maintain certificate of occupancy
The prime design professional must help coordinate contract documents from the design team members to ensure compliance with standards.
plan check official
Plan checker review
51. Rank the effectiveness of reducing financial constraints associated with compliance.
# Answer %
1 High probability of increasing compliance 25%
2 Medium probability of increasing compliance 55%
3 Low probability of increasing compliance 20%
Total 100%
Appendix B, Structural Engineers Page B‐42
52. You stated that reducing financial constraints associated with compliance would have a positive effect. What financial constraints make compliance difficult?
Text Response
Lack of dedicated compensation associated with this work for design professionals, cost of inspection associated with compliance.
unclear bid documents, lack of cost allocation for this work
Professional design fees
The cheaper it is to comply the more likely the owner will spend the money to comply
Design costs and construction costs
It's simple. If something costs less, more people will do it.
If it is difficult to design, then it is difficult to construct and will cost more money. Simple connection designs will help make everything cheaper and this will make installers want to comply.
53. In your opinion, how could the financial burden associated with code compliance be reduced?
Text Response
Provide guidelines for professional fees associated with nonstructural component bracing design. Rationalize inspection requirements.
line item bidding of bracing, consistent code enforcement
See above
Perhaps reducing insurance costs for compliant buildings would help
Keep codes simpler.
Appendix B, Structural Engineers Page B‐43
54. Rank the effectiveness of creating incentives for compliance.
# Answer %
1 High probability of increasing compliance 41%
2 Medium probability of increasing compliance 50%
3 Low probability of increasing compliance 9%
Total 100%
Appendix B, Structural Engineers Page B‐44
55. You mentioned that creating incentives for compliance would have a positive effect. Do you know of any existing incentive programs? (Note only 18 respondents answered question 55)
# Answer %
1 Yes 0%
2 No 100%
Total 100%
56. How could an incentive plan be structured?
Text Response
Insurers and lenders probably would benefit from reduced damage due to increased compliance. Jurisdictions could meet with insurers and lenders to develop incentive programs
bid process improvement
Don't Know
reduction of insurance rates or repayment of a performance bond to this effect required prior to obtaining a bldg permit
Insurance premiums should account for nonstructural bracing
Not sure
Percentage credit of permit fees when in compliance
Insurance pricing would be good.
no thoughts
Insurance savings
Give tax benefits or reduce insurance rates.
Appendix B, Structural Engineers Page B‐45
57. Rank the effectiveness of assessing penalties for non‐compliance.
# Answer %
1 High probability of increasing compliance 32%
2 Medium probability of increasing compliance 57%
3 Low probability of increasing compliance 11%
Total 100%
58. In your opinion, how should penalties be structured?
Text Response
Don't Know
Fines.
fine the owner/contractor for incompliance
Don't Know
Certificate of occupancy is not issued until all nonstructural items are taken care of.
be enforced
The plan approval process varies widely from state to state and from city to city. Penalties should depend on seismic zone.
Appendix B, Structural Engineers Page B‐46
59. Rank the effectiveness of clearly defining who is responsible for compliance in the standards and codes.
# Answer %
1 High probability of increasing compliance 55%
2 Medium probability of increasing compliance 39%
3 Low probability of increasing compliance 7%
Total 100%
Appendix B, Structural Engineers Page B‐47
60. Rank the effectiveness of creating certification for individuals responsible for ensuring compliance.
# Answer %
1 High probability of increasing compliance 34%
2 Medium probability of increasing compliance 43%
3 Low probability of increasing compliance 23%
Total 100%
Appendix B, Structural Engineers Page B‐48
61. Who needs to be certified so that compliance will be ensured?
# Answer %
1 Architect 40%
2 Structural engineer 53%
3 Civil engineer 13%
4 Mechanical engineer 40%
5 Electrical engineer 40%
6 General contractor 20%
7 Building subcontractor 20%
8 Equipment manufacturer 20%
9 Equipment supplier 13%
10 Supplier or installer of specialty seismic bracing devices
33%
11 Building inspector 67%
12 Building plan reviewer 33%
13 Construction project manager 13%
14 Overall design project manager 13%
15 Other (please specify) 7%
62. What qualifications would be necessary for a person to be certified?
Text Response
Test for specific code knowledge
familiarity with equipment and with codes or regulations
technical expertise
For Inspectors: good knowledge of the requirements; for Design professionals: detailed understanding of the Code design requirements and sufficient education/experience on the subject; for inspectors: Higher level of training and education of the design and enforcement requirements.
testing
testing
Not sure
Possibly a certification from ICC or local code enforcement authority
special education coursework
Appendix B, Structural Engineers Page B‐49
63. Rank the effectiveness of creating earthquake insurance incentives to stimulate compliance.
# Answer %
1 High probability of increasing compliance 40%
2 Medium probability of increasing compliance 44%
3 Low probability of increasing compliance 16%
Total 100%
Appendix B, Structural Engineers Page B‐50
64. You stated that by creating earthquake insurance incentives to stimulate compliance would have a positive effect. How might such earthquake insurance incentives be structured?
Text Response
Require insurance coverage to acknowledge responsibility for design and inspection compliance
Building Department Approved plans submitted to insurer to document compliance
Don't know
Reduced rates for buildings that have gone through a check and remediation process
Insurance premiums should vary depending on the extent of nonstructural components and the compliance with bracing for these components
Lower premiums for having the bracing in place.
Overall $ always makes the owner more interested
the insurance co. would inspect and rank the structure with the highest rating receiving the best incentive
Money talks. Better than penalties for non‐compliance.
Code compliance or better equates with reduced insurance rates.
Insurance breaks for buildings that a PE or SE has signed off on as being compliant
Compliant buildings have lower insurance rates. Non compliant buildings have higher insurance rates.
reduced premiums
According to seismic zones, the probability of property damage.
Something similar to requiring sill anchors for houses for better premium rate.
Appendix B, Structural Engineers Page B‐51
65. Rank the effectiveness of requiring budgeting of nonstructural seismic work in the bid process.
# Answer %
1 High probability of increasing compliance 50%
2 Medium probability of increasing compliance 38%
3 Low probability of increasing compliance 12%
Total 100%
Appendix B, Structural Engineers Page B‐52
66. Rank the effectiveness of providing detailed design standards to assist in the process of complying.
# Answer %
1 High probability of increasing compliance 52%
2 Medium probability of increasing compliance 34%
3 Low probability of increasing compliance 14%
Total 100%
Appendix B, Structural Engineers Page B‐53
67. You mentioned that providing detailed design standards to assist in the process of complying. What, if any, detailed design standards do you know of?
Text Response
Industry and manufacturer's standards and FEMA and ASCE standards provide complete data
SMANCA, NUSIG, many specific manufacturer standards. Most are not 100% complete to cover all situations which is part of the problem. SMACNA is based on old code.
SMACNA & other proprietary "pre‐engineered" systems; but often not complete enough to cover all conditions
There are several for specific industries and situations. Yes, they are very thorough.
I do not know any. However, in my opinion, the current design requirements, specifications are too restrictive and complicated and not clear. It is due to the fact that design requirements have been formulated and greatly influenced few professionals who are experts in heavy industrial, power generating facilities but who do not understand the behavior of typical and more common structures. It is my opinion that, the design requirements have unreasonably high magnitudes without proper justification. They need to be geared towards more common/typical structures and better/clearer classification of items to be anchored & their seismic design factors. This would provide better and more economical anchorages for typical/common structures. Ip (importance factors for non‐structural elements) can be accordingly adjusted upwards for critical structures/facilities. This is the current intent of the code but the current starting level of design loads are unreasonably (without any proper justification for it) high where it leads to unnecessary heavy anchorage design and framing.
OSHPD Pre‐Approvals, generally complete
No
Don't know
Anchorage of cladding systems to structural supports
The pipe, conduit, duct bracing requirements are still not clear enough. To simplify this for everyone there should be good clarity on which size items need bracing, what if there is a bunch of items on a trapeze, etc. To make this truly useful, though it needs to be extremely simple so the use of charts and graphs is minimized. A NUSIG type document, except simpler, and including good details should be available through FEMA or ASCE. I believe that the EOR would still have to "own" the use of such a document, and all stakeholders in the construction process will have to be well educated that it is not a "cookbook".
none that are easy to follow and clearly laid out
I consider the provisions of the IBC/ASCE 7 to be complete. However, they are difficult to understand, poorly referenced in the remainder of the code, and located in sections of the publications that are rarely visited by design professionals.
Standard details should be provided with supplementary job specific details. Above all a careful coordinating effort among the various design discipline is essential for the success of a project.
IBC
Appendix B, Structural Engineers Page B‐54
68. Rank the effectiveness of increasing the availability of qualified specialty contractors to ensure compliance.
# Answer %
1 High probability of increasing compliance 31%
2 Medium probability of increasing compliance 57%
3 Low probability of increasing compliance 12%
Total 100%
Appendix B, Structural Engineers Page B‐55
70. Rank the importance of first hand knowledge of earthquake effects in achieving compliance.
# Answer %
1 High probability of increasing compliance 42%
2 Medium probability of increasing compliance 47%
3 Low probability of increasing compliance 11%
Total 100%
Appendix B, Structural Engineers Page B‐56
71. Rank the importance of regulatory issues in achieving compliance.
# Answer %
1 High probability of increasing compliance 33%
2 Medium probability of increasing compliance 53%
3 Low probability of increasing compliance 14%
Total 100%
Appendix B, Structural Engineers Page B‐57
72. Rank the importance of design process issues in achieving compliance.
# Answer %
1 High probability of increasing compliance 47%
2 Medium probability of increasing compliance 39%
3 Low probability of increasing compliance 14%
Total 100%
Appendix B, Structural Engineers Page B‐58
73. What is single most important action that you believe would result in widespread use of seismic bracing of nonstructural items, in a manner which conforms to codes and design guidelines?
Text Response
Better educate A/M/E/P design professionals and specialty subcontractors
Contractors have the perception that seismic anchorage requirements are overkill, thus not fully necessary.
Re‐write the code to eliminate stupid provisions. Make the code "two level", one for life safety, and one for performance. Then, enforce the code. For performance, require certification (either via ASME stress check, or simplified but reliable cookbook methods. Omit the requirement for lateral bracing in most situations. Change the "12" rule for rod hangers.
Reasonable level of design loads and better education of all parties involved with non‐structural components' anchorage.
Owner's education
Established standards
Increase plan reviewer and building inspector education.
building inspection
Clearly define who is responsible for designing seismic bracing of what non structural items.
Owners of buildings should be required to provide a detailed nonstructural bracing program prior to receiving a building permit and the certificate of occupancy for the buildings should not be granted unless all items of the program are verified.
Education
cost
Make is a governing code
After education, have in place well structured guidelines with a ranking system in each of several categories, and insurance rates tied directly thereto. If people know the "cost benefit ratio" of each item, they will do what they can, even if they can't do it all.
Education of those responsible for design and installation.
Specific design fees
Make it part of the equipment being installed
If building officials would deny building permits if seismic restraints are not indicated on the plans.
Fully detailed designs in the drawings and complete and accurate seismic performance requirements in the specifications.
Including it in the original scope of services
Education of the design community, owners, and contractors of the requirements and the benefits.
A large earthquake that causes lots of damage
Appendix B, Structural Engineers Page B‐59
Clearer language in building and MEP codes delegating responsibility for design and specifying QC/QA requirements.
Make these requirements a high priority in building officials offices. Don't give permits or final acceptance in the field without code conformity.
Enforcement by Building Official.
Strict code enforcement.
Require that bracing details be clearly shown on plans
A certificate of compliance from architect team that such bracing have been reviewed and in general compliance with the contract document
Education and enforcement
Appendix C, Building Code Officials Page C‐1
Identification of Methods to Achieve Successful Implementation of Nonstructural and Equipment Seismic Restraints
Appendix C Building Code Officials Electronic Survey
1.0 Introduction
This appendix provides a summary of data gathered from building code officials, using the on line Qualtrics survey tool. Questions are listed in the order that they appeared to respondents.
2. Please identify your primary profession by selecting ONE of the buttons below
# Answer Response %
1 Facility/Building owner 0 0%
2 Facility manager 0 0%
4 Architect 0 0%
5 Structural engineer 0 0%
6 Civil engineer 0 0%
7 Mechanical or Electrical engineer 0 0%
9 General Contractor 0 0%
10 Building Subcontractor 0 0%
11 Equipment manufacturer (please specify the type of equipment you manufacture, e.g., ductwork bracing)
0 0%
13 Supplier or installer of specialty seismic bracing devices
0 0%
14 Building inspector 0 0%
15 Building plan reviewer 25 100%
Appendix C, Building Code Officials Page C‐2
17 University professor (please specify field of expertise)
0 0%
18 Other (SEE NOTES) 0 0%
Total 25 100%
3. How many years have you been employed?
# Answer Average Value Standard Deviation
1 Years 19.53 8.98
Total 19.53 8.98
4. What is the primary state in which you do most of your business?
# Answer %
1 California 100%
2 Utah 0%
3 Washington 0%
4 Other (please name) 0%
Total 100%
5. In what state do you reside?
# Answer %
1 California 100%
2 Utah and Washington 0%
3 Washington 0%
Total 100%
Appendix C, Building Code Officials Page C‐3
6. What is the highest level of education you have achieved?
# Answer %
1 Less than high school 0%
2 High school graduate or equivalent 0%
3 Trade/Technical school graduate (please specify your area of study)
5%
4 Some college 19%
5 College graduate (please specify your major field of study)
43%
6 Post‐graduate degree (master's, doctoral, other) (please specify your degree and area of study)
33%
Total 100%
Trade/Technical school graduate (please specify your area of study)
College graduate (please specify your major field of study)
Post‐graduate degree (master's, doctoral, other) (please specify your degree and area of study)
engineering structural MS ‐ CIVIL ENGR
Bach of ARCH MPA
Civil Engineering Master's Structural Engineering
Management MS Structural Engineering
Geological Engineering MS Civil Engineering
architecture Master‐ Civil/ structural
Civil Engineering
Architecture
7. Please identify the types of structures or facilities with which you have experience. Check one or more categories as is applicable.
# Answer Response %
1 Federal Government buildings 1 5%
2 Local or State Government buildings 11 52%
3 Emergency Services, Fire, Police 9 43%
4 Healthcare 8 38%
Appendix C, Building Code Officials Page C‐4
5 Utilities 5 24%
6 K‐12 Schools 6 29%
7 Universities 4 19%
8 Office and Commercial 21 100%
9 Industrial 17 81%
10 Residential 20 95%
11 High Occupancy, convention centers 13 62%
12 Others (please list) 6 29%
Others (please list)
amusements rides etc.
HIGHWAY DESIGN
Explosives Manufacturing
Hazardous Material usage/storage: Bioresearch;
Retail, semiconductor,
Hotels/Motels, Resorts
8. How many years experience do you have in your profession? (Please indicate below)
# Answer Average Value Standard Deviation
1 Years 24.52 7.92
Total 24.52 7.92
9. Have you ever been in an earthquake?
# Answer %
1 Yes 100%
2 No 0%
Total 100%
Appendix C, Building Code Officials Page C‐5
10. Are you familiar with any codes, design guidelines, or standards that govern the installation of nonstructural and equipment seismic restraints in buildings?
# Answer %
1 Yes 90%
2 No 10%
Total 100%
11. Please list the codes that you are familiar with:
#1 #2 #3 #4 #5
labc
2007 CALIFORNIA BLDG CODE
2007 CALIFORNIA MECHANICAL CODE
2007 CALIFORNIA PLUMBING CODE
2007 CALIFORNIA ELECTRICAL CODE
2005 CALIFORNIA ENERGY CODE
2007 CBC 2007 CEC 2007 CMC ASCE 7‐05
2007 CBC
ASCE 7‐05 UBC IBC CBC UMC
2001 California Building Code Section 1632
ASCE 7‐05 Chapter 13
California Building Code
CBC2007
LA City Bldg Code ASCE 7 AISC ACI
Uniform Building Code
Universal Building Code
Universal Pluming Code
ASCE 7‐05 ACI 318‐05 ASTM C635 ASTM C636 CISCA for Seismic Zones 3‐4
ICC UBC
CA Building Code CA Plumbing Code CA Mechanical Code
CBC ASCE 7‐05
CBC ASCE07‐05
Appendix C, Building Code Officials Page C‐6
ASCE 7‐05, Chapter 13
2007 CBC‐ family of codes
NEHRP IBC 2006 ASCE 7‐5
12. Please indicate how familiar you are with the following codes:
# Question 1‐ Not at all
familiar
2‐ Somewhat familiar
3‐ Moderately familiar
4‐ Very Familiar
5‐ Extremely familiar
Responses Mean
1 The International Building Code
0 0 5 12 3 20 3.90
2
ASCE 7‐05 (Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and Other Structures)
0 4 7 8 1 20 3.30
3
ASCE 31‐03 (Seismic Evaluation of Existing Buildings)
6 8 3 2 0 19 2.05
4 ASCE 41‐06 9 4 6 0 0 19 1.84
5 NFPA 6 9 3 1 0 19 1.95
Statistic The International Building Code
ASCE 7‐05 (Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and Other Structures)
ASCE 31‐03 (Seismic Evaluation of Existing
Buildings)
ASCE 41‐06
NFPA
Mean 3.90 3.30 2.05 1.84 1.95
Variance 0.41 0.75 0.94 0.81 0.72
Standard Deviation
0.64 0.86 0.97 0.90 0.85
Total Responses
20 20 19 19 19
Appendix C, Building Code Officials Page C‐7
13. When constructing a building in, are you required to abide by:
# Question Yes No I Don't Know
Responses Mean
1 The International Building Code 17 1 0 18 1.06
2 ASCE 7‐05 (Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and Other Structures)
17 0 1 18 1.11
3 ASCE 31‐03 (Seismic Evaluation of Existing Buildings) 3 6 5 14 2.14
4 ASCE 41‐06 2 4 8 14 2.43
5 NFPA 5 5 3 13 1.85
14. What are the penalties for noncompliance with The Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and Other Structures (ASCE 7‐05)? (Please respond in the box below. If you do not know what the penalties are, then write 'Don't Know'.
Text Response
can't be built
No permit would be issued for a new or remodeled structure that didn't meet the minimum design loads
They do not get a building permit, if build without permit then double fee’s if not comply then Admin hearing and lien may be placed on the title.
Don't Know
None
The design will not be approved for building permit.
don't know
don’t know
Revocation of permit, possibly destruction of construction completed if not complying.
don't know
Don't Know
Don't Know
No permit would be issued
Don't Know
Fines a code enforcement actions
Appendix C, Building Code Officials Page C‐8
15. What are the penalties for noncompliance with The International Building Code?
Text Response
can't get a permit to build the building
See above answer re: ASCE 7‐05
see previous
It depends on the violation
Investigation Fees and increased construction and evaluation costs
Permit is not issued until compliance is shown through drawings, details and calculations
The design will not be approved for a building permit.
don’t know
Increased Liability
revocation of permit, potentially destruction of construction if not compliant and unsafe
don't know
Don't know
Don't Know
Don't Know
Fines and code enforcement action
16. Are you aware of any specific suggested nonstructural seismic restraint guidelines produced by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA)?
# Answer %
1 Yes 29%
2 No 71%
Total 100%
Appendix C, Building Code Officials Page C‐9
17. Please list any other resources you are aware of for guidance in nonstructural seismic restraint design:
Text Response
California Building Code
FEMA 74‐‐Reducing Risks of Nonstructural Earthquake Damage FEMA 450‐‐NEHRP Recommended Provisions for Seismic Regulations FEMA 460‐‐Storage Racks
Design standard for dropped ceiling restraints. (CISCA I believe)
FEMA pre‐standards such as350, 351, 368, 369
NEHRP, IBC, ASCE, FEMA
18. How important do you think earthquake safety standards for nonstructural items; are to other professionals in the building community?
# Answer %
1 1‐ not at all important 0%
2 2 17%
3 3 6%
4 4‐ moderately important 17%
5 5 11%
6 6 33%
7 7‐ extremely important 17%
Total 100%
Appendix C, Building Code Officials Page C‐10
19. How important are nonstructural safety standards to you?
# Answer %
1 1‐ not at all important 0%
2 2 0%
3 3 6%
4 4‐ moderately important 22%
5 5 6%
6 6 28%
7 7‐ extremely important 39%
Total 100%
Appendix C, Building Code Officials Page C‐11
20. In your geographic area, how important is the installation of earthquake anchorage and the bracing of nonstructural items such as walls, ceilings, lighting fixtures, firewater piping, and ductwork?
# Answer %
1 1‐ not at all important 0%
2 2 0%
3 3 6%
4 4‐ moderately important 28%
5 5 6%
6 6 28%
7 7‐ extremely important 33%
Total 100%
21. In your geographic area, how important is the installation of seismic anchorage and the bracing of building components such as electrical transformers and electrical switchgear, and mechanical equipment, such as boilers, etc?
# Answer %
1 1‐ not at all important 0%
2 2 0%
3 3 6%
4 4‐ moderately important 22%
5 5 11%
6 6 28%
7 7‐ extremely important 33%
Total 100%
Appendix C, Building Code Officials Page C‐12
22. In your geographic area, how important is the seismic anchorage and bracing design of facade elements, such as exterior panels and windows?
# Answer %
1 1‐ not at all important 0%
2 2 6%
3 3 12%
4 4‐ moderately important 18%
5 5 6%
6 6 24%
7 7‐ extremely important 35%
Total 100%
23. In your geographic area, how important is the seismic anchorage and bracing design of process equipment in an industrial facility or utility?
# Answer %
1 1‐ not at all important 0%
2 2 6%
3 3 6%
4 4‐ moderately important 22%
5 5 6%
6 6 33%
7 7‐ extremely important 28%
Total 100%
Appendix C, Building Code Officials Page C‐13
24. If a major earthquake were to occur in your area and if nonstructural or equipment items (such as those defined earlier) were NOT anchored or braced in a building, to what extent do you believe injuries or death would occur?
# Answer %
1 Injuries or death definitely would not happen 0%
2 Injuries or death probably would not happen 6%
3 Injuries or death may or may not happen 28%
4 Injuries or death probably would happen 50%
5 Injuries or death definitely would happen 17%
Total 100%
25. If a major earthquake were to occur in your area and if equipment or nonstructural restraints were absent in a structure, to what extent do you believe that major damage would occur to the structure?
# Answer %
1 Major damage definitely would not happen 0%
2 Major damage probably would not happen 17%
3 Major damage may or may not happen 17%
4 Major damage probably would happen 56%
5 Major damage definitely would happen 11%
Total 100%
Appendix C, Building Code Officials Page C‐14
26. If a major earthquake were to occur in your area, to what extent do you believe that damage to nonstructural or equipment items could result in severe enough damage to cause major facility downtime?
# Answer %
1 Major facility downtime definitely would not happen
0%
2 Major facility downtime probably would not happen 6%
3 Major facility downtime may or may not happen 18%
4 Major facility downtime probably would happen 59%
5 Major facility downtime definitely would happen 18%
Total 100%
27. Which do you believe is more likely in your area (choose one):
# Answer Response %
1 Failure of, or significant damage to, nonstructural elements and systems during a moderate earthquake
14 88%
2 Structural collapse during a moderate earthquake
2 13%
Total 16 100%
Appendix C, Building Code Officials Page C‐15
28. In your opinion, when a structure is to be built, who is responsible to be familiar with nonstructural seismic safety design standards? (Check all that apply)
# Answer %
1 Architect 83%
2 Structural engineer 94%
3 Civil engineer 61%
4 Mechanical engineer 89%
5 Electrical engineer 72%
6 General contractor 78%
7 Building subcontractor 67%
8 Equipment manufacturer 50%
9 Equipment supplier 33%
10 Supplier or installer of specialty seismic bracing devices
56%
11 Building inspector 72%
12 Building plan reviewer 83%
13 Construction project manager 72%
14 Overall design project manager 56%
15 Other (please specify) 6%
Appendix C, Building Code Officials Page C‐16
29. In your opinion, when a structure is to be built, who has the primary responsibility to be familiar with nonstructural seismic safety design standards? (Select one)
# Answer %
x1 Architect 47%
x2 Structural engineer 35%
x3 Civil engineer 6%
x4 Mechanical engineer 0%
x5 Electrical engineer 0%
x6 General contractor 6%
x7 Building subcontractor 0%
x8 Equipment manufacturer 0%
x9 Equipment supplier 0%
x10 Supplier or installer of specialty seismic bracing devices
0%
x11 Building inspector 0%
x12 Building plan reviewer 0%
x13 Construction project manager 0%
x14 Overall design project manager 6%
x15 Other (please specify) 0%
Total 100%
Appendix C, Building Code Officials Page C‐17
30. In your opinion, who have you found to be the most informed about nonstructural seismic safety design standards? (Select one)
# Answer %
1 Architect 12%
2 Structural engineer 35%
3 Civil engineer 6%
4 Mechanical engineer 6%
5 Electrical engineer 0%
6 General contractor 0%
7 Building subcontractor 0%
8 Equipment manufacturer 0%
9 Equipment supplier 0%
10 Supplier or installer of specialty seismic bracing devices
0%
11 Building inspector 6%
12 Building plan reviewer 29%
13 Construction project manager 0%
14 Overall design project manager 0%
15 Other (please specify) 6%
Total 100%
Appendix C, Building Code Officials Page C‐18
31. In your opinion, who have you found to be the least informed about nonstructural seismic safety design standards? (Select one)
# Answer %
1 Architect 35%
2 Structural engineer 0%
3 Civil engineer 6%
4 Mechanical engineer 0%
5 Electrical engineer 0%
6 General contractor 24%
7 Building subcontractor 0%
8 Equipment manufacturer 6%
9 Equipment supplier 12%
10 Supplier or installer of specialty seismic bracing devices
0%
11 Building inspector 0%
12 Building plan reviewer 0%
13 Construction project manager 18%
14 Overall design project manager 0%
15 Other (please specify) 0%
Total 100%
Appendix C, Building Code Officials Page C‐19
32. Who do you believe is responsible for compliance with nonstructural seismic safety design standards? (With a '1' representing the party most responsible.)
# Answer 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Responses
1 Architect 7 4 3 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 15
2 Structural engineer 5 5 1 1 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 14
3 Civil engineer 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 5
4 Mechanical engineer
0 3 6 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 13
5 Electrical engineer 0 1 4 1 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 10
6 General contractor 2 1 3 4 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 12
7 Building subcontractor
1 1 1 4 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 11
8 Equipment manufacturer
2 0 0 0 0 0 1 3 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 8
9 Equipment supplier 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 5
10 Supplier or installer of specialty seismic bracing devices
1 0 1 0 0 2 0 0 1 0 2 0 0 0 0 7
11 Building inspector 0 1 1 0 0 3 2 0 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 10
12 Building plan reviewer
1 1 0 0 3 2 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 10
13 Construction project manager
1 1 0 1 3 0 1 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 10
14 Overall design project manager
2 0 0 0 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 7
15 Other (please specify)
1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
Total 25 18 21 13 11 10 9 8 6 5 4 4 3 1 0
Appendix C, Building Code Officials Page C‐20
33. In your opinion, who has ultimate responsibility to see that buildings are compliant with nonstructural seismic safety design standards? (Select one)
# Answer %
1 Architect 41%
2 Structural engineer 24%
3 Civil engineer 6%
4 Mechanical engineer 0%
5 Electrical engineer 0%
6 General contractor 0%
7 Building subcontractor 0%
8 Equipment manufacturer 0%
9 Equipment supplier 0%
10 Supplier or installer of specialty seismic bracing devices
0%
11 Building inspector 6%
12 Building plan reviewer 6%
13 Construction project manager 0%
14 Overall design project manager 6%
15 Other (please specify) 12%
Total 100%
Appendix C, Building Code Officials Page C‐21
34. Given that there are standards governing the correct installation of nonstructural and equipment seismic restraints in buildings, how well do you believe these standards are complied with in your building community?
# Answer %
1 1‐ never complied with 0%
2 2‐ sometimes complied with 12%
3 3‐ usually complied with 71%
4 4‐ always complied with 18%
Total 100%
35. What percentage of completed structures would you estimate meet nonstructural and equipment seismic restraint standards in your building community?
# Answer Average Value Standard Deviation
1 % meeting standards 64.88 18.50
Total 64.88 18.50
Appendix C, Building Code Officials Page C‐22
36. In cases where you believe nonstructural items in buildings and facilities have been designed and constructed with good seismic anchorage and bracing measures, why has this occurred? [Check all that apply]
# Answer %
1 The owner required and checked for compliance with these measures
6%
2 The government or other oversight group checked for compliance with these measures
75%
3 It was important to me in my professional capacity 25%
4 It was required for financing or insurance to be approved
0%
5 It was required before the contractor, subcontractor, and/or equipment suppliers could be paid
13%
6 It was required by design professionals 81%
7 Equipment suppliers provided anchorage kits for this purpose
6%
8 The specialty contractors knew what to do and performed this work correctly
44%
Appendix C, Building Code Officials Page C‐23
9 It was a bid item, and therefore had to be done for the contractor to be paid
6%
10 It is a strictly enforced provision 44%
11 Building inspectors enforce these measures 69%
12 It is done as a matter of standard practice in my profession
13%
13 The owner hired a specialist in this area to design and/or construct these measures
31%
14 It occurred for the work my firm was involved in, but not for others in the same facility
0%
15 Other (please specify) 6%
16 Other (please specify) 0%
17 Other (please specify) 0%
37. Please rank five (5) from the list below in order of causal forces by dragging and dropping them to their respective order:
# Answer Responses
x1 The owner required and checked for compliance with these measures 0
x2 The government or other oversight group checked for compliance with these measures
10
x3 It was important to me in my professional capacity 4
x4 It was required for financing or insurance to be approved 0
x5 It was required before the contractor, subcontractor, and/or equipment suppliers could be paid
2
x6 It was required by design professionals 9
x7 Equipment suppliers provided anchorage kits for this purpose 1
x8 The specialty contractors knew what to do and performed this work correctly 6
x9 It was a bid item, and therefore had to be done for the contractor to be paid 1
x10 It is a strictly enforced provision 5
x11 Building inspectors enforce these measures 9
x12 It is done as a matter of standard practice in my profession 1
x13 The owner hired a specialist in this area to design and/or construct these measures 3
x14 It occurred for the work my firm was involved in, but not for others in the same facility
0
Appendix C, Building Code Officials Page C‐24
38. To the extent that you see noncompliance with nonstructural and equipment seismic restraint standards in your building community, why do you think the noncompliance occurs? (Check all that apply)
# Answer %
1 I have never seen compliance 7%
2 The likelihood of a damaging earthquake in this area is too low to justify complying with the standards.
0%
3 It's not against the law to fail to comply with the standards; compliance will happen when it's the law.
7%
4 It is too time consuming to comply with these standards.
20%
5 It is too expensive to comply with the standards. 33%
6 There is little regulatory enforcement of compliance with the standards.
27%
7 The standards are poorly designed. 27%
8 The standards are too difficult to understand. 47%
9 There is little incentive to comply with these standards.
7%
10 There is a lack of compensation for oversight compliance.
13%
11 No one is really interested in making sure the standards are complied with.
13%
12 No one is adequately trained to make sure the standards are complied with.
53%
13 There is a communication breakdown between everyone involved in constructing the building that contributes to noncompliance.
40%
14 There are liability concerns that prevent compliance.
0%
15 No one knows who is ultimately responsible for compliance.
40%
16 Everyone passes the buck to someone else, so compliance doesn't occur.
27%
17 Compliance just falls through the cracks. 40%
Appendix C, Building Code Officials Page C‐25
18 Penalties for noncompliance aren't severe enough to make compliance a high priority.
13%
19 Everyone just assumes someone else will make sure that compliance occurs.
27%
20 No one is qualified to certify compliance. 0%
21 The likely consequences of an earthquake in my area are to minimal to justify the cost and effort of compliance.
0%
22 Other (please specify) 7%
23 Other (please specify) 0%
24 Other (please specify) 0%
Appendix C, Building Code Officials Page C‐26
39. Please rank order the reasons why you think noncompliance occurs. Include your own reasons in the ordering if you add any to the list. If there are more than five reasons in the list, rank only the top five. 1 = Most important
# Answer Responses
x1 I have never seen compliance 0
x2 The likelihood of a damaging earthquake in this area is too low to justify complying with the standards.
0
x3 It's not against the law to fail to comply with the standards; compliance will happen when it's the law.
1
x4 It is too time consuming to comply with these standards. 2
x5 It is too expensive to comply with the standards. 3
x6 There is little regulatory enforcement of compliance with the standards. 2
x7 The standards are poorly designed. 4
x8 The standards are too difficult to understand. 3
x9 There is little incentive to comply with these standards. 1
x10 There is a lack of compensation for oversight compliance. 2
x11 No one is really interested in making sure the standards are complied with. 0
x12 No one is adequately trained to make sure the standards are complied with. 6
x13 There is a communication breakdown between everyone involved in constructing the building that contributes to noncompliance.
5
x14 There are liability concerns that prevent compliance. 0
x15 No one knows who is ultimately responsible for compliance. 3
x16 Everyone passes the buck to someone else, so compliance doesn't occur. 2
x17 Compliance just falls through the cracks. 4
x18 Penalties for noncompliance aren't severe enough to make compliance a high priority.
2
x19 Everyone just assumes someone else will make sure that compliance occurs. 4
x20 No one is qualified to certify compliance. 0
x21 The likely consequences of an earthquake in my area are to minimal to justify the cost and effort of compliance.
0
x22 Other (please specify) 0
Appendix C, Building Code Officials Page C‐27
x23 Other (please specify) 0
40. Are you personally aware of buildings having been constructed in your area that were not compliant with nonstructural and equipment seismic safety design standards?
# Answer %
1 Yes 8%
2 No 92%
Total 100%
41. How prevalent is noncompliance?
# Answer %
1 Very common 8%
2 Occasional 62%
3 Rare 31%
Total 100%
Appendix C, Building Code Officials Page C‐28
42. In cases where nonstructural items are not adequately anchored and braced for earthquake loads, what are the primary factors that could lead to good design and construction practices? (Please check as many as applicable.
# Answer %
1 New technical provisions in the building codes, i.e. improvement in the technical requirements, could lead to good design and construction practices.
38%
2 Stricter building codes enforcement could lead to good design and construction practices.
54%
3 Better education of design professionals could lead to good design and construction practices.
92%
4 Better education of owners could lead to good design and construction practices.
46%
5 Better education of contractors and equipment suppliers could lead to good design and construction practices.
62%
6 Design fees specifically allocated to this work could lead to good design and construction practices.
31%
7 More federal grants for mitigation of nonstructural 8%
Appendix C, Building Code Officials Page C‐29
hazards during remodels could lead to good design and construction practices.
8 Better internal quality control by design professionals could lead to good design and construction practices.
38%
9
The creation of a new system, with specific professional licensing requirements for this type of work, could lead to good design and construction practices.
23%
10 Fairer enforcement of standards across all projects could lead to good design and construction practices.
31%
11 Financial incentives, such as reduced insurance costs, could lead to good design and construction practices.
31%
12 Better public education of hazards posed by nonstructural items in an earthquake could lead to good design and construction practices.
62%
13
Punishment of design professionals and contractors or others associated with non‐compliant buildings or facilities could lead to good design and construction practices.
23%
14 Other (please specify) 15%
45. Rank the effectiveness of education to increase familiarity with the standards.
# Answer %
1 High probability of increasing compliance 54%
2 Medium probability of increasing compliance 46%
3 Low probability of increasing compliance 0%
Total 100%
Appendix C, Building Code Officials Page C‐30
46. Who needs to be educated so that compliance will increase?
# Answer %
1 Architect 43%
2 Structural engineer 14%
3 Civil engineer 0%
4 Mechanical engineer 0%
5 Electrical engineer 0%
6 General contractor 0%
7 Building subcontractor 0%
8 Equipment manufacturer 0%
9 Equipment supplier 0%
10 Supplier or installer of specialty seismic bracing devices
0%
11 Building inspector 0%
12 Building plan reviewer 29%
13 Construction project manager 0%
14 Overall design project manager 14%
15 Owner 0%
16 Other (please specify) 0%
Total 100%
Appendix C, Building Code Officials Page C‐31
47. Rank the effectiveness of enhancing enforcement of the current standards.
# Answer %
1 High probability of increasing compliance 42%
2 Medium probability of increasing compliance 50%
3 Low probability of increasing compliance 8%
Total 100%
48. You stated that enhancing the enforcement of the current standards would have a positive effect. How could enforcement of the standards be enhanced?
Text Response
Better training and funding for education of Building Officials and staff
Making clear the requirements, and whether special inspection of these items is mandatory
Appendix C, Building Code Officials Page C‐32
Building Inspector training
educate regulators such as plans examiners and building inspectors
49. Rank the effectiveness of reduced financial constraints associated with compliance.
# Answer %
1 High probability of increasing compliance 31%
2 Medium probability of increasing compliance 46%
3 Low probability of increasing compliance 23%
Total 100%
50. Rank the effectiveness of creating incentives for compliance.
# Answer %
1 High probability of increasing compliance 9%
2 Medium probability of increasing compliance 73%
3 Low probability of increasing compliance 18%
Appendix C, Building Code Officials Page C‐33
Total 100%
51. Rank the effectiveness of assessing penalties for non‐compliance.
# Answer %
1 High probability of increasing compliance 23%
2 Medium probability of increasing compliance 54%
3 Low probability of increasing compliance 23%
Total 100%
52. You stated that assessing penalties for non‐compliance would have a positive effect. Is the existing plan approval process adaptable?
# Answer %
1 Yes 67%
Appendix C, Building Code Officials Page C‐34
2 No 33%
Total 100%
53. Rank the effectiveness of clearly defining who is responsible for compliance in the standards and codes.
# Answer Response %
1 High probability of increasing compliance
6 46%
2 Medium probability of increasing compliance
6 46%
3 Low probability of increasing compliance
1 8%
Total 13 100%
Statistic Value
Mean 1.62
Variance 0.42
Standard Deviation 0.65
Total Responses 13
54. Rank the effectiveness of creating certification for individuals responsible for ensuring compliance.
# Answer %
1 High probability of increasing compliance 33%
2 Medium probability of increasing compliance 50%
3 Low probability of increasing compliance 17%
Total 100%
Appendix C, Building Code Officials Page C‐35
55. Who needs to be certified so that compliance will ensured?
# Answer %
1 Architect 100%
2 Structural engineer 50%
3 Civil engineer 0%
4 Mechanical engineer 50%
5 Electrical engineer 25%
6 General contractor 50%
7 Building subcontractor 50%
8 Equipment manufacturer 50%
9 Equipment supplier 50%
10 Supplier or installer of specialty seismic bracing devices
50%
11 Building inspector 25%
12 Building plan reviewer 25%
13 Construction project manager 75%
14 Overall design project manager 75%
15 Other (please specify) 0%
56. Rank the effectiveness of creating earthquake insurance incentives to stimulate compliance.
# Answer %
1 High probability of increasing compliance 23%
2 Medium probability of increasing compliance 54%
3 Low probability of increasing compliance 23%
Total 100%
Appendix C, Building Code Officials Page C‐36
57. Rank the effectiveness of requiring budgeting of nonstructural seismic work in the bid process.
# Answer %
1 High probability of increasing compliance 0%
2 Medium probability of increasing compliance 67%
3 Low probability of increasing compliance 33%
Total 100%
58. Rank the effectiveness of providing detailed design standards to assist in the process of complying.
# Answer %
1 High probability of increasing compliance 25%
2 Medium probability of increasing compliance 67%
Appendix C, Building Code Officials Page C‐37
3 Low probability of increasing compliance 8%
Total 100%
59. Rank the effectiveness of increasing the availability of qualified specialty contractors to ensure compliance.
# Answer %
1 High probability of increasing compliance 31%
2 Medium probability of increasing compliance 54%
3 Low probability of increasing compliance 15%
Total 100%
60. You stated that an increase in the availability of qualified specialty contractors to ensure compliance would have a positive effect. Are well‐qualified specialty contractors available?
# Answer %
1 Yes 50%
2 No 50%
Total 100%
61. Rank the effectiveness of requiring equipment suppliers to design and install seismic anchorage and bracing systems.
# Answer %
1 High probability of increasing compliance 75%
2 Medium probability of increasing compliance 17%
3 Low probability of increasing compliance 8%
Total 100%
Appendix C, Building Code Officials Page C‐38
62. Rank the importance of first hand knowledge of earthquake effects in achieving compliance.
# Answer %
1 High probability of increasing compliance 36%
2 Medium probability of increasing compliance 45%
3 Low probability of increasing compliance 18%
Total 100%
63. Rank the importance of regulatory issues in achieving compliance.
# Answer %
1 High probability of increasing compliance 27%
2 Medium probability of increasing compliance 55%
3 Low probability of increasing compliance 18%
Total 100%
64. Rank the importance design process issues in achieving compliance.
# Answer %
1 High probability of increasing compliance 27%
2 Medium probability of increasing compliance 64%
3 Low probability of increasing compliance 9%
Total 100%
Appendix C, Building Code Officials Page C‐39
65. What is single most important action that you believe would result in widespread use of seismic bracing of nonstructural items, in a manner which conforms to codes and design guidelines?
Text Response
Certify the design architect, engineer and the installation contractor.
more training for design engineers
Education Outreach!
Education as to the requirements
Simplifying the standards to a one size fits all
Consolidate applicable technical standards and have typical details to import on to the plans.
Ease of use, low cast to install, quick to be done.
Educate design professionals, regulators (plans examiners and inspectors), equipment suppliers, and general contractors of the specific requirements; have code requirements that are required to be stated on the plans
Appendix D, Architect Responses Page D‐1
Identification of Methods to Achieve Successful Implementation of Nonstructural and Equipment Seismic Restraints
Appendix D Architects Electronic Survey Results 1.0 Introduction
This appendix provides a summary of data gathered from architects, using the on line Qualtrics survey tool. Questions are listed in the order that they appeared to respondents.
2. Please identify your primary profession by selecting ONE of the buttons below
# Answer Response %
1 Facility/Building owner 0 0%
2 Facility manager 0 0%
4 Architect 15 100%
5 Structural engineer 0 0%
6 Civil engineer 0 0%
7 Mechanical or Electrical engineer 0 0%
9 General Contractor 0 0%
10 Building Subcontractor 0 0%
11 Equipment manufacturer (please specify the type of equipment you manufacture, e.g., ductwork bracing)
0 0%
13 Supplier or installer of specialty seismic 0 0%
Appendix D, Architect Responses Page D‐2
bracing devices
14 Building inspector 0 0%
15 Building plan reviewer 0 0%
17 University professor (please specify field of expertise)
0 0%
18 Other (SEE NOTES) 0 0%
Total 15 100%
4. How many years have you been employed in your profession?
# Answer Average Value Standard Deviation
1 Years 24.89 11.29
Total 24.89 11.29
5. What is the primary state in which you do most of your business?
# Answer %
1 California 62%
2 Utah 23%
3 Washington 15%
4 Other (please name) 0%
Total 100%
6. In what state do you reside?
# Answer Response %
1 California 8 62%
2 Utah and Washington 3 23%
3 Washington 2 15%
Total 13 100%
Appendix D, Architect Responses Page D‐3
7. Please identify the types of structures or facilities with which you have experience. Check one or more categories as is applicable.
# Answer Response %
1 Federal Government buildings 2 15%
2 Local or State Government buildings 5 38%
3 Emergency Services, Fire, Police 0 0%
4 Healthcare 2 15%
5 Utilities 0 0%
6 K‐12 Schools 3 23%
7 Universities 6 46%
8 Office and Commercial 12 92%
9 Industrial 5 38%
10 Residential 12 92%
11 High Occupancy, convention centers 2 15%
12 Others (please list) 1 8%
8. How many years experience do you have in your profession? (Please indicate below)
# Answer Average Value Standard Deviation
1 Years 26.86 8.18
Total 26.86 8.18
9. Have you ever been in an earthquake?
# Answer Response %
1 Yes 12 92%
2 No 1 8%
Total 13 100%
Appendix D, Architect Responses Page D‐4
10. Are you familiar with any codes, design guidelines, or standards that govern the installation of nonstructural and equipment seismic restraints in buildings
# Answer %
1 Yes 85%
2 No 15%
Total 100%
11. Please list the codes that you are familiar with:
#1 #2 #3 #4 #5
IBC
calif bldg code
UBC Title 24 California State Building code
2006 IBC 2006 IRC
Ceiling lateral support
MEP equip support
Curtain wall floor drift accommodation
Stair floor drift accommodation
Building differential movement expansion joints
California Building Code
California Plumbing Code
CBC 2007 IBC 2006 CBC 2001 UBC 1997 UBC earlier
UBC Former San Francisco Building Code
Los Angeles Building Code
IBC ASCE 7
restraint of water heater in residential work
lay in ceiling grid restraint
tall furniture restraint
IBC UBC
UBC/Title 24 UMC
Appendix D, Architect Responses Page D‐5
12. Please indicate how familiar you are with the following codes:
# Question 1‐ Not at all
familiar
2‐ Somewhat familiar
3‐ Moderately familiar
4‐ Very Familiar
5‐ Extremely familiar
Responses Mean
1 The International Building Code
0 4 0 5 2 11 3.45
2
ASCE 7‐05 (Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and Other Structures)
7 0 1 2 1 11 2.09
3
ASCE 31‐03 (Seismic Evaluation of Existing Buildings)
6 2 3 0 0 11 1.73
4 ASCE 41‐06 10 0 0 0 0 10 1.00
5 NFPA 7 3 0 0 0 10 1.30
Statistic The International Building Code
ASCE 7‐05 (Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and Other Structures)
ASCE 31‐03 (Seismic Evaluation of Existing
Buildings)
ASCE 41‐06
NFPA
Mean 3.45 2.09 1.73 1.00 1.30
Variance 1.47 2.49 0.82 0.00 0.23
Standard Deviation
1.21 1.58 0.90 0.00 0.48
Total Responses
11 11 11 10 10
Appendix D, Architect Responses Page D‐6
13. When constructing a building in, are you required to abide by:
# Question Yes No I Don't Know
Responses Mean
1 The International Building Code 8 2 1 11 1.36
2 ASCE 7‐05 (Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and Other Structures)
4 0 6 10 2.20
3 ASCE 31‐03 (Seismic Evaluation of Existing Buildings) 3 0 7 10 2.40
4 ASCE 41‐06 0 0 10 10 3.00
5 NFPA 3 0 7 10 2.40
Statistic The International Building Code
ASCE 7‐05 (Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and Other Structures)
ASCE 31‐03 (Seismic Evaluation of Existing
Buildings)
ASCE 41‐06
NFPA
Mean 1.36 2.20 2.40 3.00 2.40
Variance 0.45 1.07 0.93 0.00 0.93
Standard Deviation
0.67 1.03 0.97 0.00 0.97
Total Responses
11 10 10 10 10
14. What are the penalties for noncompliance with The Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and Other Structures (ASCE 7‐05)? (Please respond in the box below.
Text Response
Do not know for sure. But if the building fails you could be legally on the hook and sued
don't know
Don’t Know
Don't know
professional license impacts
Don't Know
Appendix D, Architect Responses Page D‐7
15. What are the penalties for noncompliance with The International Building Code?
Text Response
Do not know for sure. But if the building fails you could be legally on the hook and sued
Don’t know
Loss of license, law suits, no building permit...
You cannot get a permit.
don't know
professional license impacts
Don't Know
censure, loss of license, fines, jail
For my work, no approvals, no occupancy.
16. Are you aware of any specific suggested nonstructural seismic restraint guidelines produced by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA)?
# Answer %
1 Yes 40%
2 No 60%
Total 100%
17. Please list any other resources you are aware of for guidance in nonstructural seismic restraint design:
Text Response
CBC
Ceiling and Interior Systems Construction Association (CISCA)
Henry Lagorio's book FEMA 154/July 1988
common sense
Appendix D, Architect Responses Page D‐8
18. How important do you think earthquake safety standards for nonstructural items are to other professionals in the building community?
# Answer %
1 1‐ not at all important 0%
2 2 0%
3 3 0%
4 4‐ moderately important 13%
5 5 25%
6 6 38%
7 7‐ extremely important 25%
Total 100%
Appendix D, Architect Responses Page D‐9
19. What is the highest level of education you have achieved?
# Answer %
1 Less than high school 0%
2 High school graduate or equivalent 0%
3 Trade/Technical school graduate (please specify your area of study)
0%
4 Some college 15%
5 College graduate (please specify your major field of study)
38%
6 Post‐graduate degree (master's, doctoral, other) (please specify your degree and area of study)
46%
Total 100%
20. How important are nonstructural safety standards to you?
# Answer %
1 1‐ not at all important 0%
2 2 0%
3 3 0%
4 4‐ moderately important 0%
5 5 0%
6 6 63%
7 7‐ extremely important 38%
Total 100%
Appendix D, Architect Responses Page D‐10
21. In your geographic area, how important is the installation of earthquake anchorage and the bracing of nonstructural items such as walls, ceilings, lighting fixtures, firewater piping, and ductwork?
# Answer %
1 1‐ not at all important 0%
2 2 0%
3 3 0%
4 4‐ moderately important 0%
5 5 0%
6 6 38%
7 7‐ extremely important 63%
Total 100%
22. In your geographic area, how important is the installation of seismic anchorage and the bracing of building components such as electrical transformers and electrical switchgear, and mechanical equipment
# Answer %
1 1‐ not at all important 0%
2 2 0%
3 3 0%
4 4‐ moderately important 0%
5 5 14%
6 6 43%
7 7‐ extremely important 43%
Total 100%
Appendix D, Architect Responses Page D‐11
23. In your geographic area, how important is the seismic anchorage and bracing design of facade elements, such as exterior panels and windows?
# Answer %
1 1‐ not at all important 0%
2 2 0%
3 3 0%
4 4‐ moderately important 13%
5 5 0%
6 6 25%
7 7‐ extremely important 63%
Total 100%
24. In your geographic area, how important is the seismic anchorage and bracing design of process equipment in an industrial facility or utility?
# Answer %
1 1‐ not at all important 0%
2 2 0%
3 3 0%
4 4‐ moderately important 0%
5 5 13%
6 6 38%
7 7‐ extremely important 50%
Total 100%
Appendix D, Architect Responses Page D‐12
25. If a major earthquake were to occur in your area and if nonstructural or equipment items (such as those defined earlier) were NOT anchored or braced in a building, to what extent do you believe injuries or death would occur?
# Answer %
1 Injuries or death definitely would not happen 0%
2 Injuries or death probably would not happen 0%
3 Injuries or death may or may not happen 25%
4 Injuries or death probably would happen 25%
5 Injuries or death definitely would happen 50%
Total 100%
26. If a major earthquake were to occur in your area and if equipment or nonstructural restraints were absent in a structure, to what extent do you believe that major damage would occur to the structure?
# Answer %
1 Major damage definitely would not happen 0%
2 Major damage probably would not happen 0%
3 Major damage may or may not happen 25%
4 Major damage probably would happen 50%
5 Major damage definitely would happen 25%
Total 100%
Appendix D, Architect Responses Page D‐13
27. If a major earthquake were to occur in your area, to what extent do you believe that damage to nonstructural or equipment items could result in severe enough damage to cause major facility downtime?
# Answer %
1 Major facility downtime definitely would not happen 0%
2 Major facility downtime probably would not happen 0%
3 Major facility downtime may or may not happen 13%
4 Major facility downtime probably would happen 50%
5 Major facility downtime definitely would happen 38%
Total 100%
29. In your opinion, when a structure is to be built, who is responsible to be familiar with nonstructural seismic safety design standards? (Check all that apply)
# Answer %
1 Architect 100%
2 Structural engineer 88%
3 Civil engineer 38%
4 Mechanical engineer 100%
5 Electrical engineer 100%
6 General contractor 88%
7 Building subcontractor 88%
8 Equipment manufacturer 75%
9 Equipment supplier 50%
10 Supplier or installer of specialty seismic bracing devices
63%
11 Building inspector 100%
12 Building plan reviewer 100%
13 Construction project manager 75%
14 Overall design project manager 63%
15 Other (please specify) 13%
Appendix D, Architect Responses Page D‐14
30. In your opinion, when a structure is to be built, who has the primary responsibility to be familiar with nonstructural seismic safety design standards? (Select one)
# Answer %
x1 Architect 63%
x2 Structural engineer 13%
x3 Civil engineer 0%
x4 Mechanical engineer 0%
x5 Electrical engineer 0%
x6 General contractor 25%
x7 Building subcontractor 0%
x8 Equipment manufacturer 0%
x9 Equipment supplier 0%
x10 Supplier or installer of specialty seismic bracing devices
0%
x11 Building inspector 0%
x12 Building plan reviewer 0%
x13 Construction project manager 0%
x14 Overall design project manager 0%
x15 Other (please specify) 0%
Total 100%
Appendix D, Architect Responses Page D‐15
31. In your opinion, who have you found to be the most informed about nonstructural seismic safety design standards. (Select one)
# Answer %
1 Architect 38%
2 Structural engineer 25%
3 Civil engineer 0%
4 Mechanical engineer 0%
5 Electrical engineer 0%
6 General contractor 0%
7 Building subcontractor 0%
8 Equipment manufacturer 0%
9 Equipment supplier 0%
10 Supplier or installer of specialty seismic bracing devices
13%
11 Building inspector 13%
12 Building plan reviewer 0%
13 Construction project manager 0%
14 Overall design project manager 0%
15 Other (please specify) 13%
Total 100%
Appendix D, Architect Responses Page D‐16
32. In your opinion, who have you found to be the least informed about nonstructural seismic safety design standards. (Select one)
# Answer %
1 Architect 0%
2 Structural engineer 0%
3 Civil engineer 25%
4 Mechanical engineer 0%
5 Electrical engineer 0%
6 General contractor 13%
7 Building subcontractor 13%
8 Equipment manufacturer 13%
9 Equipment supplier 0%
10 Supplier or installer of specialty seismic bracing devices
0%
11 Building inspector 13%
12 Building plan reviewer 0%
13 Construction project manager 13%
14 Overall design project manager 0%
15 Other (please specify) 13%
Total 100%
Appendix D, Architect Responses Page D‐17
33. Who do you believe is responsible for compliance with nonstructural seismic safety design standards? [Please rank order your responses with a '1' representing the party most responsible.]
# Answer 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Responses
1 Architect 4 0 1 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 8
2 Structural engineer 0 1 0 3 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 7
3 Civil engineer 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 2
4 Mechanical engineer 0 1 1 1 2 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 8
5 Electrical engineer 0 0 2 0 1 1 1 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8
6 General contractor 3 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 7
7 Building subcontractor
0 3 0 0 0 1 2 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 7
8 Equipment manufacturer
0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 4
9 Equipment supplier 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 4
10 Supplier or installer of specialty seismic bracing devices
0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 3
11 Building inspector 1 2 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 7
12 Building plan reviewer
0 2 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 7
13 Construction project manager
0 0 0 2 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 4
14 Overall design project manager
0 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 4
15 Other (please specify)
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Total 8 9 10 9 8 7 7 5 6 4 4 3 0 0 0
Appendix D, Architect Responses Page D‐18
34. In your opinion, who has ultimate responsibility to see that buildings are compliant with nonstructural seismic safety design standards? (Select one)
# Answer %
1 Architect 25%
2 Structural engineer 0%
3 Civil engineer 0%
4 Mechanical engineer 0%
5 Electrical engineer 0%
6 General contractor 13%
7 Building subcontractor 0%
8 Equipment manufacturer 0%
9 Equipment supplier 0%
10 Supplier or installer of specialty seismic bracing devices
0%
11 Building inspector 50%
12 Building plan reviewer 0%
13 Construction project manager 0%
14 Overall design project manager 0%
15 Other (please specify) 13%
Total 100%
Appendix D, Architect Responses Page D‐19
35. Given that there are standards governing the correct installation of nonstructural and equipment seismic restraints in buildings, how well do you believe these standards are complied with in your building community?
# Answer %
1 1‐ never complied with 0%
2 2‐ sometimes complied with 25%
3 3‐ usually complied with 75%
4 4‐ always complied with 0%
Total 100%
37. In cases where you believe nonstructural items in buildings and facilities have been designed and constructed with good seismic anchorage and bracing measures, why has this occurred? [Check all that apply]
Appendix D, Architect Responses Page D‐20
# Answer %
1 The owner required and checked for compliance with these measures
38%
2 The government or other oversight group checked for compliance with these measures
75%
3 It was important to me in my professional capacity 75%
4 It was required for financing or insurance to be approved
25%
5 It was required before the contractor, subcontractor, and/or equipment suppliers could be paid
38%
6 It was required by design professionals 100%
7 Equipment suppliers provided anchorage kits for this purpose
25%
8 The specialty contractors knew what to do and performed this work correctly
50%
9 It was a bid item, and therefore had to be done for the contractor to be paid
63%
10 It is a strictly enforced provision 50%
11 Building inspectors enforce these measures 75%
12 It is done as a matter of standard practice in my profession
38%
13 The owner hired a specialist in this area to design and/or construct these measures
13%
14 It occurred for the work my firm was involved in, but not for others in the same facility
0%
15 Other (please specify) 13%
16 Other (please specify) 0%
17 Other (please specify) 0%
Appendix D, Architect Responses Page D‐21
38. Please rank FIVE (5) from the list below in order of causal forces by dragging and dropping them to their respective order:
# Answer Responses
x1 The owner required and checked for compliance with these measures 3
x2 The government or other oversight group checked for compliance with these measures
4
x3 It was important to me in my professional capacity 5
x4 It was required for financing or insurance to be approved 2
x5 It was required before the contractor, subcontractor, and/or equipment suppliers could be paid
3
x6 It was required by design professionals 6
x7 Equipment suppliers provided anchorage kits for this purpose 1
x8 The specialty contractors knew what to do and performed this work correctly 3
x9 It was a bid item, and therefore had to be done for the contractor to be paid 5
x10 It is a strictly enforced provision 3
x11 Building inspectors enforce these measures 4
x12 It is done as a matter of standard practice in my profession 2
x13 The owner hired a specialist in this area to design and/or construct these measures 1
x14 It occurred for the work my firm was involved in, but not for others in the same facility 0
x15 Other (please specify) 1
x16 Other (please specify) 0
x17 Other (please specify) 0
Total
Appendix D, Architect Responses Page D‐22
39. To the extent that you see noncompliance with nonstructural and equipment seismic restraint standards in your building community, why do you think the noncompliance occurs? (Check all that apply)
# Answer %
1 I have never seen compliance 14%
2 The likelihood of a damaging earthquake in this area is too low to justify complying with the standards.
0%
3 It's not against the law to fail to comply with the standards; compliance will happen when it's the law.
0%
4 It is too time consuming to comply with these standards.
14%
5 It is too expensive to comply with the standards. 43%
6 There is little regulatory enforcement of compliance with the standards.
14%
7 The standards are poorly designed. 14%
8 The standards are too difficult to understand. 14%
9 There is little incentive to comply with these standards.
14%
10 There is a lack of compensation for oversight compliance.
14%
11 No one is really interested in making sure the standards are complied with.
0%
12 No one is adequately trained to make sure the standards are complied with.
29%
13 There is a communication breakdown between everyone involved in constructing the building that contributes to noncompliance.
29%
14 There are liability concerns that prevent compliance. 14%
15 No one knows who is ultimately responsible for compliance.
29%
16 Everyone passes the buck to someone else, so compliance doesn't occur.
14%
17 Compliance just falls through the cracks. 43%
18 Penalties for noncompliance aren't severe enough to make compliance a high priority.
14%
19 Everyone just assumes someone else will make sure that compliance occurs.
29%
Appendix D, Architect Responses Page D‐23
20 No one is qualified to certify compliance. 14%
21 The likely consequences of an earthquake in my area are to minimal to justify the cost and effort of compliance.
0%
22 Other (please specify) 14%
23 Other (please specify) 0%
24 Other (please specify) 0%
40. Are you personally aware of buildings having been constructed in your area that were not compliant with nonstructural and equipment seismic safety design standards?
# Answer %
1 Yes 38%
2 No 63%
Total 100%
41. How prevalent is noncompliance?
# Answer %
1 Very common 14%
2 Occasional 57%
3 Rare 29%
Total 100%
Appendix D, Architect Responses Page D‐24
42. In cases where nonstructural items are not adequately anchored and braced for earthquake loads, what are the primary factors that could lead to good design and construction practices? (Please check as many as applicable
# Answer %
1 New technical provisions in the building codes, i.e. improvement in the technical requirements, could lead to good design and construction practices.
14%
2 Stricter building codes enforcement could lead to good design and construction practices.
43%
3 Better education of design professionals could lead to good design and construction practices.
100%
4 Better education of owners could lead to good design and construction practices.
71%
5 Better education of contractors and equipment suppliers could lead to good design and construction practices.
100%
6 Design fees specifically allocated to this work could lead to good design and construction practices.
14%
7 More federal grants for mitigation of nonstructural hazards during remodels could lead to good design and construction practices.
0%
8 Better internal quality control by design professionals could lead to good design and
57%
Appendix D, Architect Responses Page D‐25
construction practices.
9
The creation of a new system, with specific professional licensing requirements for this type of work, could lead to good design and construction practices.
0%
10 Fairer enforcement of standards across all projects could lead to good design and construction practices.
14%
11 Financial incentives, such as reduced insurance costs, could lead to good design and construction practices.
43%
12 Better public education of hazards posed by nonstructural items in an earthquake could lead to good design and construction practices.
14%
13
Punishment of design professionals and contractors or others associated with non‐compliant buildings or facilities could lead to good design and construction practices.
0%
43. Rank the effectiveness of education to increase familiarity with the standards.
# Answer %
1 High probability of increasing compliance 63%
2 Medium probability of increasing compliance 38%
3 Low probability of increasing compliance 0%
Total 100%
45. Rank the effectiveness of enhancing enforcement of the current standards.
# Answer Response %
1 High probability of increasing compliance 6 75%
2 Medium probability of increasing compliance
2 25%
3 Low probability of increasing compliance 0 0%
Appendix D, Architect Responses Page D‐26
46. You stated that enhancing the enforcement of the current standards would have a positive effect. How could enforcement of the standards be enhanced?
Text Response
EDUCATION OF PROFESSION AND BUILDING OFFICIALS
properly educate plan reviewers and inspectors about standards
Building Inspectors Enforcement
non approval, no occupancy.
47. Rank the effectiveness of reducing financial constraints associated with compliance.
# Answer %
1 High probability of increasing compliance 25%
2 Medium probability of increasing compliance 63%
3 Low probability of increasing compliance 13%
Total 100%
48. You stated that reducing financial constraints associated with compliance would have a positive effect. What financial constraints make compliance difficult?
Text Response
time involved in detail design and labor and materials for installation
Reduction of Insurance Premiums
49. Rank the effectiveness of Creating incentives for compliance.
# Answer %
1 High probability of increasing compliance 50%
2 Medium probability of increasing compliance 25%
3 Low probability of increasing compliance 25%
Total 100%
Appendix D, Architect Responses Page D‐27
50. Do you know of any existing incentive programs?
# Answer %
1 Yes 0%
2 No 100%
Total 100%
51. Rank the effectiveness of assessing penalties for non‐compliance.
# Answer Response %
1 High probability of increasing compliance 4 50%
2 Medium probability of increasing compliance
3 38%
3 Low probability of increasing compliance 1 13%
Total 8 100%
52. Is the existing plan approval process adaptable?
# Answer %
1 Yes 75%
2 No 25%
Total 100%
53. Rank the effectiveness of clearly defining who is responsible for compliance in the standards and codes.
# Answer %
1 High probability of increasing compliance 57%
2 Medium probability of increasing compliance 43%
3 Low probability of increasing compliance 0%
Total 100%
Appendix D, Architect Responses Page D‐28
54. Rank the effectiveness of creating certification for individuals responsible for ensuring compliance.
# Answer %
1 High probability of increasing compliance 43%
2 Medium probability of increasing compliance 43%
3 Low probability of increasing compliance 14%
Total 100%
56. Rank the effectiveness of creating earthquake insurance incentives to stimulate compliance.
# Answer %
1 High probability of increasing compliance 63%
2 Medium probability of increasing compliance 38%
3 Low probability of increasing compliance 0%
Total 100%
57. Rank the effectiveness of requiring budgeting of nonstructural seismic work in the bid process.
# Answer %
1 High probability of increasing compliance 43%
2 Medium probability of increasing compliance 57%
3 Low probability of increasing compliance 0%
Total 100%
58. Rank the effectiveness of providing detailed design standards to assist in the process of complying.
# Answer %
1 High probability of increasing compliance 75%
2 Medium probability of increasing compliance
25%
3 Low probability of increasing compliance 0%
Total 100%
Appendix D, Architect Responses Page D‐29
59. Rank the effectiveness of increasing the availability of qualified specialty contractors to ensure compliance. # Answer %
1 High probability of increasing compliance 0%
2 Medium probability of increasing compliance 88%
3 Low probability of increasing compliance 13%
Total 100%
60. Rank the effectiveness of requiring equipment suppliers to design and install seismic anchorage and bracing systems. # Answer %
1 High probability of increasing compliance 38%
2 Medium probability of increasing compliance
63%
3 Low probability of increasing compliance 0%
Total 100%
61. Rank the importance of first hand knowledge of earthquake effects in achieving compliance.
# Answer %
1 High probability of increasing compliance 50%
2 Medium probability of increasing compliance 50%
3 Low probability of increasing compliance 0%
Total 100%
62. Rank the importance of regulatory issues in achieving compliance.
# Answer %
1 High probability of increasing compliance 25%
2 Medium probability of increasing compliance 75%
3 Low probability of increasing compliance 0%
Appendix D, Architect Responses Page D‐30
63. Rank the importance of design process issues in achieving compliance.
# Answer %
1 High probability of increasing compliance 38%
2 Medium probability of increasing compliance 63%
3 Low probability of increasing compliance 0%
Total 100%
64. What is single most important action that you believe would result in widespread use of seismic bracing of nonstructural items, in a manner which conforms to codes and design guidelines?
Text Response
Educating building owners of the potential liability from death or injury from non‐conforming seismic bracing.
Inspections by Building Inspectors, Contractors, Architects, Specialty Installers, etc. of detailed anchorage requirements.
Clarify and simplify confusing code provisions, notably ASCE 7 standards
litigation
educate the folks building the building
Appendix E, Contractor Responses Page E‐1
Identification of Methods to Achieve Successful Implementation of Nonstructural and Equipment Seismic Restraints
Appendix E Contractors Electronic Survey Results
1.0 Introduction
This appendix provides a summary of data gathered from contractors, using the on line Qualtrics survey tool. Questions are listed in the order that they appeared to respondents.
2. Please identify your primary profession by selecting ONE of the buttons below
# Answer Response %
1 Facility/Building owner 0 0%
2 Facility manager 0 0%
4 Architect 0 0%
5 Structural engineer 0 0%
6 Civil engineer 0 0%
7 Mechanical or Electrical engineer 0 0%
9 General Contractor 9 100%
10 Building Subcontractor 0 0%
11 Equipment manufacturer (please specify the type of equipment you manufacture, e.g., ductwork bracing)
0 0%
13 Supplier or installer of specialty seismic bracing devices
0 0%
Appendix E, Contractor Responses Page E‐2
14 Building inspector 0 0%
15 Building plan reviewer 0 0%
17 University professor (please specify field of expertise)
0 0%
Total 9 100%
3. Which of the following describes your role in that position?
# Answer Response %
1 Project Manager 4 44%
2 Project Estimator 0 0%
4 Neither 0 0%
3 Other (Please Specify) 5 56%
Total 9 100%
4. How many years have you been employed in your profession?
# Answer Average Value Standard Deviation
1 Years 19.57 11.00
Total 19.57 11.00
5. What is the primary state in which you do most of your business?
# Answer Response %
1 California 5 56%
2 Utah 0 0%
3 Washington 2 22%
4 Other (please name) 2 22%
Total 9 100%
Appendix E, Contractor Responses Page E‐3
6. In what state do you reside?
# Answer Response %
1 California 4 67%
2 Utah and Washington 0 0%
3 Washington 2 33%
Total 6 100%
7. What is the highest level of education you have achieved?
# Answer Response %
1 Less than high school 0 0%
2 High school graduate or equivalent 0 0%
3 Trade/Technical school graduate (please specify your area of study)
0 0%
4 Some college 2 22%
5 College graduate (please specify your major field of study)
5 56%
6 Post‐graduate degree (master's, doctoral, other) (please specify your degree and area of study)
2 22%
Total 9 100%
Trade/Technical school graduate (please specify your area of study)
College graduate (please specify your major field of study)
Post‐graduate degree (master's, doctoral, other) (please specify your degree and area of study)
Business MBA International Business
BS‐Bldg. Const. Mgmt. MS Civil
German Culture
Construction Management
BS Constr. Management
Appendix E, Contractor Responses Page E‐4
8. Please identify the types of structures or facilities with which you have experience. Check one or more categories as is applicable.
# Answer Response %
1 Federal Government buildings 2 22%
2 Local or State Government buildings 2 22%
3 Emergency Services, Fire, Police 1 11%
4 Healthcare 2 22%
5 Utilities 2 22%
6 K‐12 Schools 1 11%
7 Universities 1 11%
8 Office and Commercial 3 33%
9 Industrial 3 33%
10 Residential 6 67%
11 High Occupancy, convention centers 1 11%
12 Others (please list) 3 33%
9. How many years experience do you have in your profession? (Please indicate below)
# Answer Average Value Standard Deviation
1 Years 22.56 12.48
Total 22.56 12.48
10. Have you ever been in an earthquake?
# Answer Response %
1 Yes 8 89%
2 No 1 11%
Total 9 100%
Appendix E, Contractor Responses Page E‐5
11. Are you familiar with any codes, design guidelines, or standards that govern the installation of nonstructural and equipment seismic restraints in buildings?
# Answer Response %
1 Yes 2 22%
2 No 7 78%
Total 9 100%
12. Please indicate how familiar you are with the following codes:
# Question 1‐ Not at all
familiar
2‐ Somewhat familiar
3‐ Moderately familiar
4‐ Very Familiar
5‐ Extremely familiar
Responses Mean
1 The International Building Code
1 2 3 2 0 8 2.75
2
ASCE 7‐05 (Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and Other Structures)
2 4 1 0 0 7 1.86
3
ASCE 31‐03 (Seismic Evaluation of Existing Buildings)
2 3 2 1 0 8 2.25
4 ASCE 41‐06 5 3 0 0 0 8 1.38
5 NFPA 4 4 0 0 0 8 1.50
Appendix E, Contractor Responses Page E‐6
Statistic The International Building Code
ASCE 7‐05 (Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and Other Structures)
ASCE 31‐03 (Seismic Evaluation of Existing
Buildings)
ASCE 41‐06
NFPA
Mean 2.75 1.86 2.25 1.38 1.50
Variance 1.07 0.48 1.07 0.27 0.29
Standard Deviation
1.04 0.69 1.04 0.52 0.53
Total Responses
8 7 8 8 8
13. When constructing a building are you required to abide by:
# Question Yes No I Don't Know
Responses Mean
1 The International Building Code 6 1 1 8 1.38
2 ASCE 7‐05 (Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and Other Structures)
2 0 3 5 2.20
3 ASCE 31‐03 (Seismic Evaluation of Existing Buildings) 2 0 3 5 2.20
4 ASCE 41‐06 1 0 4 5 2.60
5 NFPA 2 0 3 5 2.20
Statistic The International Building Code
ASCE 7‐05 (Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and Other Structures)
ASCE 31‐03 (Seismic Evaluation of Existing
Buildings)
ASCE 41‐06
NFPA
Mean 1.38 2.20 2.20 2.60 2.20
Variance 0.55 1.20 1.20 0.80 1.20
Standard Deviation
0.74 1.10 1.10 0.89 1.10
Total Responses
8 5 5 5 5
Appendix E, Contractor Responses Page E‐7
14. What are the penalties for noncompliance with The Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and Other Structures (ASCE 7‐05)? (Please respond in the box below. If you do not know what the penalties are, then write 'don’t know’.
Text Response
Should be caught at plan check or red tagged at the site if caught there
Non‐acceptance of the building. non‐receipt of C of O
Don't Know
15. What are the penalties for noncompliance with The International Building Code?
Text Response
Correct work or have project stopped
Should be caught at plan check or red tagged at the site if caught there
Loss of contractor's license ‐ possible fines
Non‐acceptance of the building. non‐receipt of C of O
No permit given, redesign needed
16. Are you aware of any specific suggested nonstructural seismic restraint guidelines produced by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA)?
# Answer Response %
1 Yes 0 0%
2 No 6 100%
Total 6 100%
Appendix E, Contractor Responses Page E‐8
17. How important do you think earthquake safety standards for nonstructural items; are to other professionals in the building community?
# Answer %
1 1‐ not at all important 0%
2 2 0%
3 3 0%
4 4‐ moderately important 50%
5 5 33%
6 6 17%
7 7‐ extremely important 0%
18. How important are nonstructural safety standards to you?
# Answer %
1 1‐ not at all important 0%
2 2 0%
3 3 0%
4 4‐ moderately important 57%
5 5 14%
6 6 14%
7 7‐ extremely important 14%
Total 100%
Appendix E, Contractor Responses Page E‐9
19. In your geographic area, how important is the installation of earthquake anchorage and the bracing of nonstructural items such as walls, ceilings, lighting fixtures, firewater piping, and ductwork?
# Answer %
1 1‐ not at all important 14%
2 2 0%
3 3 0%
4 4‐ moderately important 57%
5 5 0%
6 6 14%
7 7‐ extremely important 14%
Total 100%
20. In your geographic area, how important is the installation of seismic anchorage and the bracing of building components such as electrical transformers and electrical switchgear, and mechanical equipment?
# Answer %
1 1‐ not at all important 14%
2 2 0%
3 3 0%
4 4‐ moderately important 29%
5 5 14%
6 6 14%
7 7‐ extremely important 29%
Total 100%
Appendix E, Contractor Responses Page E‐10
21. In your geographic area, how important is the seismic anchorage and bracing design of facade elements, such as exterior panels and windows?
# Answer %
1 1‐ not at all important 14%
2 2 0%
3 3 0%
4 4‐ moderately important 43%
5 5 29%
6 6 14%
7 7‐ extremely important 0%
Total 100%
22. In your geographic area, how important is the seismic anchorage and bracing design of process equipment in an industrial facility or utility?
# Answer %
1 1‐ not at all important 17%
2 2 0%
3 3 0%
4 4‐ moderately important 33%
5 5 17%
6 6 0%
7 7‐ extremely important 33%
Total 100%
Appendix E, Contractor Responses Page E‐11
23. If a major earthquake were to occur in your area and if nonstructural or equipment items (such as those defined earlier) were NOT anchored or braced in a building, to what extent do you believe injuries or death would occur?
# Answer %
1 Injuries or death definitely would not happen 0%
2 Injuries or death probably would not happen 14%
3 Injuries or death may or may not happen 0%
4 Injuries or death probably would happen 57%
5 Injuries or death definitely would happen 29%
Total 100%
24. If a major earthquake were to occur in your area and if equipment or nonstructural restraints were absent in a structure, to what extent do you believe that major damage would occur to the structure?
# Answer %
1 Major damage definitely would not happen 0%
2 Major damage probably would not happen 0%
3 Major damage may or may not happen 29%
4 Major damage probably would happen 43%
5 Major damage definitely would happen 29%
Total 100%
Appendix E, Contractor Responses Page E‐12
25. If a major earthquake were to occur in your area, to what extent do you believe that damage to nonstructural or equipment items could result in severe enough damage to cause major facility downtime?
# Answer %
1 Major facility downtime definitely would not happen 0%
2 Major facility downtime probably would not happen 0%
3 Major facility downtime may or may not happen 43%
4 Major facility downtime probably would happen 43%
5 Major facility downtime definitely would happen 14%
Total 100%
26. Which do you believe is more likely in your area (choose one):
# Answer %
1 Failure of, or significant damage to, nonstructural elements and systems during a moderate earthquake
86%
2 Structural collapse during a moderate earthquake 14%
Total 100%
Appendix E, Contractor Responses Page E‐13
27. In your opinion, when a structure is to be built, who is responsible to be familiar with nonstructural seismic safety design standards? (Check all that apply)
# Answer %
1 Architect 71%
2 Structural engineer 43%
3 Civil engineer 14%
4 Mechanical engineer 71%
5 Electrical engineer 71%
6 General contractor 29%
7 Building subcontractor 29%
8 Equipment manufacturer 43%
9 Equipment supplier 14%
10 Supplier or installer of specialty seismic bracing devices
29%
11 Building inspector 57%
12 Building plan reviewer 71%
13 Construction project manager 29%
14 Overall design project manager 43%
Appendix E, Contractor Responses Page E‐14
28. In your opinion, when a structure is to be built, who has the primary responsibility to be familiar with nonstructural seismic safety design standards? (Select one)
# Answer %
x1 Architect 29%
x2 Structural engineer 29%
x3 Civil engineer 0%
x4 Mechanical engineer 14%
x5 Electrical engineer 0%
x6 General contractor 0%
x7 Building subcontractor 0%
x8 Equipment manufacturer 0%
x9 Equipment supplier 0%
x10 Supplier or installer of specialty seismic bracing devices
0%
x11 Building inspector 14%
x12 Building plan reviewer 14%
x13 Construction project manager 0%
x14 Overall design project manager 0%
Appendix E, Contractor Responses Page E‐15
29. In your opinion, who have you found to be the most informed about nonstructural seismic safety design standards. (Select one)
# Answer %
1 Architect 14%
2 Structural engineer 14%
3 Civil engineer 0%
4 Mechanical engineer 14%
5 Electrical engineer 0%
6 General contractor 0%
7 Building subcontractor 14%
8 Equipment manufacturer 0%
9 Equipment supplier 0%
10 Supplier or installer of specialty seismic bracing devices
0%
11 Building inspector 43%
12 Building plan reviewer 0%
13 Construction project manager 0%
14 Overall design project manager 0%
15 Other (please specify) 0%
Total 100%
Appendix E, Contractor Responses Page E‐16
30. In your opinion, who have you found to be the least informed about nonstructural seismic safety design standards. (Select one)
# Answer %
1 Architect 29%
2 Structural engineer 0%
3 Civil engineer 0%
4 Mechanical engineer 0%
5 Electrical engineer 0%
6 General contractor 14%
7 Building subcontractor 0%
8 Equipment manufacturer 0%
9 Equipment supplier 14%
10 Supplier or installer of specialty seismic bracing devices
0%
11 Building inspector 0%
12 Building plan reviewer 0%
13 Construction project manager 43%
14 Overall design project manager 0%
15 Other (please specify) 0%
Total 100%
Appendix E, Contractor Responses Page E‐17
31. Who do you believe is responsible for compliance with nonstructural seismic safety design standards? [Please rank order your responses with a '1' representing the party most responsible, etc.]
# Answer 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Responses
1 Architect 2 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 6
2 Structural engineer 2 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 5
3 Civil engineer 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 2
4 Mechanical engineer 1 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4
5 Electrical engineer 0 2 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4
6 General contractor 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 5
7 Building subcontractor 0 0 1 0 0 2 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4
8 Equipment manufacturer
0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 3
9 Equipment supplier 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 3
10 Supplier or installer of specialty seismic bracing devices
1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 4
11 Building inspector 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7
12 Building plan reviewer 0 2 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 5
13 Construction project manager
0 0 0 0 2 0 0 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 5
14 Overall design project manager
0 1 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4
15 Other (please specify) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Total 7 9 6 7 6 4 4 5 3 3 2 2 2 1 0
Appendix E, Contractor Responses Page E‐18
32. In your opinion, who has ultimate responsibility to see that buildings are compliant with nonstructural seismic safety deign standards? (Select one)
# Answer %
1 Architect 14%
2 Structural engineer 14%
3 Civil engineer 0%
4 Mechanical engineer 0%
5 Electrical engineer 0%
6 General contractor 0%
7 Building subcontractor 0%
8 Equipment manufacturer 0%
9 Equipment supplier 0%
10 Supplier or installer of specialty seismic bracing devices
0%
11 Building inspector 57%
12 Building plan reviewer 0%
13 Construction project manager 0%
14 Overall design project manager 14%
15 Other (please specify) 0%
Total 100%
Appendix E, Contractor Responses Page E‐19
33. Given that there are standards governing the correct installation of nonstructural and equipment seismic restraints in buildings, how well do you believe these standards are complied with in your building community?
# Answer %
1 1‐ never complied with 0%
2 2‐ sometimes complied with 71%
3 3‐ usually complied with 29%
4 4‐ always complied with 0%
Total 100%
34. What percentage of completed structures would you estimate meet nonstructural and equipment seismic restraint standards in your building community?
# Answer Average Value Standard Deviation
1 % meeting standards 36.40 30.95
Total 36.40 30.95
Appendix E, Contractor Responses Page E‐20
35. In cases where you believe nonstructural items in buildings and facilities have been designed and constructed with good seismic anchorage and bracing measures, why has this occurred?
# Answer %
1 The owner required and checked for compliance with these measures
57%
2 The government or other oversight group checked for compliance with these measures
14%
3 It was important to me in my professional capacity 14%
4 It was required for financing or insurance to be approved
14%
5 It was required before the contractor, subcontractor, and/or equipment suppliers could be paid
0%
6 It was required by design professionals 86%
7 Equipment suppliers provided anchorage kits for this purpose
14%
8 The specialty contractors knew what to do and performed this work correctly
57%
9 It was a bid item, and therefore had to be done for the contractor to be paid
0%
10 It is a strictly enforced provision 43%
11 Building inspectors enforce these measures 57%
Appendix E, Contractor Responses Page E‐21
12 It is done as a matter of standard practice in my profession
29%
13 The owner hired a specialist in this area to design and/or construct these measures
0%
14 It occurred for the work my firm was involved in, but not for others in the same facility
0%
15 Other (please specify) 0%
16 Other (please specify) 0%
17 Other (please specify) 0%
Appendix E, Contractor Responses Page E‐22
36. To the extent that you see noncompliance with nonstructural and equipment seismic restraint standards in your building community, why do you think the noncompliance occurs? (Check all that apply)
# Answer Response %
1 I have never seen compliance 0 0%
2 The likelihood of a damaging earthquake in this area is too low to justify complying with the standards.
1 17%
3 It's not against the law to fail to comply with the standards; compliance will happen when it's the law.
2 33%
4 It is too time consuming to comply with these standards.
1 17%
5 It is too expensive to comply with the standards.
1 17%
6 There is little regulatory enforcement of compliance with the standards.
2 33%
7 The standards are poorly designed. 1 17%
8 The standards are too difficult to understand.
1 17%
9 There is little incentive to comply with these standards.
0 0%
10 There is a lack of compensation for oversight compliance.
0 0%
11 No one is really interested in making sure the standards are complied with.
0 0%
12 No one is adequately trained to make sure the standards are complied with.
4 67%
13
There is a communication breakdown between everyone involved in constructing the building that contributes to noncompliance.
2 33%
14 There are liability concerns that prevent compliance.
0 0%
15 No one knows who is ultimately responsible for compliance.
1 17%
Appendix E, Contractor Responses Page E‐23
16 Everyone passes the buck to someone else, so compliance doesn't occur.
0 0%
17 Compliance just falls through the cracks. 0 0%
18 Penalties for noncompliance aren't severe enough to make compliance a high priority.
1 17%
19 Everyone just assumes someone else will make sure that compliance occurs.
1 17%
20 No one is qualified to certify compliance. 0 0%
21 The likely consequences of an earthquake in my area are to minimal to justify the cost and effort of compliance.
1 17%
22 Other (please specify) 0 0%
23 Other (please specify) 0 0%
24 Other (please specify) 0 0%
37. Are you personally aware of buildings having been constructed in your area that were not compliant with nonstructural and equipment seismic safety design standards?
# Answer %
1 Yes 43%
2 No 57%
Total 100%
38. How prevalent is noncompliance?
# Answer %
1 Very common 43%
2 Occasional 29%
3 Rare 29%
Total 100%
Appendix E, Contractor Responses Page E‐24
39. In cases where nonstructural items are not adequately anchored and braced for earthquake loads, what are the primary factors that could lead to good design and construction practices? Please check as many as apply.
# Answer %
1 New technical provisions in the building codes, i.e. improvement in the technical requirements, could lead to good design and construction practices.
50%
2 Stricter building codes enforcement could lead to good design and construction practices.
67%
3 Better education of design professionals could lead to good design and construction practices.
83%
4 Better education of owners could lead to good design and construction practices.
17%
5 Better education of contractors and equipment suppliers could lead to good design and construction practices.
67%
6 Design fees specifically allocated to this work could lead to good design and construction practices.
17%
7 More federal grants for mitigation of nonstructural 17%
Appendix E, Contractor Responses Page E‐25
hazards during remodels could lead to good design and construction practices.
8 Better internal quality control by design professionals could lead to good design and construction practices.
50%
9
The creation of a new system, with specific professional licensing requirements for this type of work, could lead to good design and construction practices.
33%
10 Fairer enforcement of standards across all projects could lead to good design and construction practices.
17%
11 Financial incentives, such as reduced insurance costs, could lead to good design and construction practices.
17%
12 Better public education of hazards posed by nonstructural items in an earthquake could lead to good design and construction practices.
33%
13
Punishment of design professionals and contractors or others associated with non‐compliant buildings or facilities could lead to good design and construction practices.
0%
14 Other (please specify) 0%
Appendix E, Contractor Responses Page E‐26
40. Who is responsible for the correct seismic anchorage of equipment and the seismic bracing? (Select one)
# Answer %
1 Architect 0%
2 Structural engineer 25%
3 Civil engineer 0%
4 Mechanical engineer 25%
5 Electrical engineer 0%
6 General contractor 0%
7 Building subcontractor 50%
8 Equipment manufacturer 0%
9 Equipment supplier 0%
10 Supplier or installer of specialty seismic bracing devices
0%
11 Building inspector 0%
12 Building plan reviewer 0%
13 Construction project manager 0%
14 Overall design project manager 0%
15 Other (please specify) 0%
Total 100%
Appendix E, Contractor Responses Page E‐27
41. Who do you think should be responsible for seismic design? (Select one)
# Answer %
1 Architect 20%
2 Structural engineer 60%
3 Civil engineer 0%
4 Mechanical engineer 20%
5 Electrical engineer 0%
6 General contractor 0%
7 Building subcontractor 0%
8 Equipment manufacturer 0%
9 Equipment supplier 0%
10 Supplier or installer of specialty seismic bracing devices
0%
11 Building inspector 0%
12 Building plan reviewer 0%
13 Construction project manager 0%
14 Overall design project manager 0%
15 Other (please specify) 0%
Total 100%
42. Do you believe that seismic anchorage and bracing is important?
# Answer %
1 Yes 100%
2 No 0%
Total 100%
Appendix E, Contractor Responses Page E‐28
43. Do you think that others understand your equipment well enough to provide a correct seismic design?
# Answer %
1 Yes 0%
2 No 100%
Total 100%
44. Do you include a cost for seismic anchorage or bracing in your competitive bids?
# Answer %
1 Yes 60%
2 No 40%
Total 100%
45. What percentage of the project cost is associated with this work?
# Answer Average Value Standard Deviation
1 Percentage of Project Cost 2.00 0.00
Total 2.00 0.00
46. As a subcontractor, are you responsible for the correct seismic anchorage of equipment and the seismic bracing of piping, ductwork, cable tray, and so forth?
# Answer Response %
1 Yes 0 0%
2 No 0 0%
Total 0 0%
Appendix E, Contractor Responses Page E‐29
49. If typical details given in design specifications do not conform to the actual piping layout equipment configuration, or other factors, who is responsible for developing a workable design? Select one of the following.
# Answer Response %
1 Architect 0 0%
2 Structural engineer 0 0%
3 Mechanical engineer 2 100%
4 Electrical engineer 0 0%
5 General contractor 0 0%
6 Specialty contractor 0 0%
7 Equipment supplier 0 0%
Total 2 100%
Statistic Value
Mean 3.00
Variance 0.00
Standard Deviation 0.00
Total Responses 2
50. Does ASCE 7‐05 ever require equipment to be shake‐table tested?
# Answer Response %
1 Yes 0 0%
2 No 0 0%
3 Don't know 0 0%
Total 0 0%
Appendix E, Contractor Responses Page E‐30
51. Rank the effectiveness in education to increase familiarity with the standards.
# Answer %
1 High probability of increasing compliance 57%
2 Medium probability of increasing compliance 29%
3 Low probability of increasing compliance 14%
Total 100%
52. Rank the effectiveness of enhancing enforcement of the current standards.
# Answer %
1 High probability of increasing compliance 43%
2 Medium probability of increasing compliance 43%
3 Low probability of increasing compliance 14%
Total 100%
53. Rank the effectiveness of reducing financial constraints associated with compliance.
# Answer %
1 High probability of increasing compliance 33%
2 Medium probability of increasing compliance 67%
3 Low probability of increasing compliance 0%
Total 100%
Appendix E, Contractor Responses Page E‐31
54. Rank the effectiveness of creating incentives for compliance.
# Answer %
1 High probability of increasing compliance 40%
2 Medium probability of increasing compliance 60%
3 Low probability of increasing compliance 0%
Total 100%
55. Rank the effectiveness of assessing penalties for non‐compliance.
# Answer %
1 High probability of increasing compliance 50%
2 Medium probability of increasing compliance 33%
3 Low probability of increasing compliance 17%
Total 100%
56. Rank the effectiveness of clearly defining who is responsible for compliance in the standards and codes.
# Answer %
1 High probability of increasing compliance 60%
2 Medium probability of increasing compliance 40%
3 Low probability of increasing compliance 0%
Total 100%
Appendix E, Contractor Responses Page E‐32
57. Rank the effectiveness of creating certification for individuals responsible for ensuring compliance.
# Answer %
1 High probability of increasing compliance 50%
2 Medium probability of increasing compliance 33%
3 Low probability of increasing compliance 17%
Total 100%
58. Who needs to be certified so that compliance will be ensured?
# Answer %
1 Architect 33%
2 Structural engineer 67%
3 Civil engineer 0%
4 Mechanical engineer 33%
5 Electrical engineer 33%
6 General contractor 67%
7 Building subcontractor 0%
8 Equipment manufacturer 0%
9 Equipment supplier 0%
10 Supplier or installer of specialty seismic bracing devices
33%
11 Building inspector 33%
12 Building plan reviewer 33%
13 Construction project manager 0%
14 Overall design project manager 33%
15 Other (please specify) 0%
Appendix E, Contractor Responses Page E‐33
59. Rank the effectiveness of creating earthquake insurance incentives to stimulate compliance.
# Answer %
1 High probability of increasing compliance 50%
2 Medium probability of increasing compliance 33%
3 Low probability of increasing compliance 17%
Total 100%
61. Rank the effectiveness of requiring budgeting of nonstructural seismic work in the bid process.
# Answer %
1 High probability of increasing compliance 80%
2 Medium probability of increasing compliance 20%
3 Low probability of increasing compliance 0%
Total 100%
62. Rank the effectiveness of providing detailed design standards to assist in the process of complying.
# Answer %
1 High probability of increasing compliance 100%
2 Medium probability of increasing compliance 0%
3 Low probability of increasing compliance 0%
Total 100%
Appendix E, Contractor Responses Page E‐34
63. Rank the effectiveness of increasing the availability of qualified specialty contractors to ensure compliance.
# Answer %
1 High probability of increasing compliance 20%
2 Medium probability of increasing compliance 80%
3 Low probability of increasing compliance 0%
Total 100%
64. Rank the effectiveness of requiring equipment suppliers to design and install seismic anchorage and bracing systems.
# Answer %
1 High probability of increasing compliance 25%
2 Medium probability of increasing compliance 50%
3 Low probability of increasing compliance 25%
Total 100%
65. Rank the importance of first hand knowledge of earthquake effects in achieving compliance.
# Answer %
1 High probability of increasing compliance 40%
2 Medium probability of increasing compliance 60%
3 Low probability of increasing compliance 0%
Total 100%
Appendix E, Contractor Responses Page E‐35
66. Rank the importance regulatory issues in achieving compliance. # Answer %
1 High probability of increasing compliance 40%
2 Medium probability of increasing compliance 60%
3 Low probability of increasing compliance 0%
Total 100%
67. Rank the importance design process issues in achieving compliance.
# Answer %
1 High probability of increasing compliance 40%
2 Medium probability of increasing compliance 60%
3 Low probability of increasing compliance 0%
Total 100%
68. What is single most important action that you believe would result in widespread use of seismic bracing of nonstructural items, in a manner which conforms to codes and design guidelines?
Text Response
Training ‐ certification
design requirements for permitting
building codes
providing an approved complete design with specific details that reflect the actual construction being used as part of the plans and specs
Appendix F, Mechanical/Electrical Engineer Responses Page F‐1
Identification of Methods to Achieve Successful Implementation of Nonstructural and Equipment Seismic Restraints
Appendix F Mechanical/Electrical Engineers Electronic Survey Results
1.0 Introduction
This appendix provides a summary of data gathered from mechanical and electrical engineers, using the on line Qualtrics survey tool. Questions are listed in the order that they appeared to respondents.
2. Please identify your primary profession by selecting ONE of the buttons below
# Answer Response %
1 Facility/Building owner 0 0%
2 Facility manager 0 0%
4 Architect 0 0%
5 Structural engineer 0 0%
6 Civil engineer 0 0%
7 Mechanical or Electrical engineer 6 100%
9 General Contractor 0 0%
10 Building Subcontractor 0 0%
11 Equipment manufacturer (please specify the type of equipment you manufacture, e.g., ductwork bracing)
0 0%
13 Supplier or installer of specialty seismic bracing devices
0 0%
14 Building inspector 0 0%
15 Building plan reviewer 0 0%
Appendix F, Mechanical/Electrical Engineer Responses Page F‐2
17 University professor (please specify field of expertise)
0 0%
18 Other (SEE NOTES) 0 0%
Total 6 100%
3. How many years have you been employed in your profession?
# Answer Average Value Standard Deviation
1 Years 26.25 7.54
Total 26.25 7.54
4. What is the primary state in which you do most of your business?
# Answer Response %
1 California 2 33%
2 Utah 0 0%
3 Washington 0 0%
4 Other (please name) 4 67%
Total 6 100%
5. What is the highest level of education you have achieved?
# Answer Response %
1 Less than high school 0 0%
2 High school graduate or equivalent 0 0%
3 Trade/Technical school graduate (please specify your area of study)
0 0%
4 Some college 1 17%
5 College graduate (please specify your major field of study)
4 67%
6 Post‐graduate degree (master's, doctoral, other) (please specify your degree and area of study)
1 17%
Total 6 100%
Appendix F, Mechanical/Electrical Engineer Responses Page F‐3
6. Please identify the types of structures or facilities with which you have experience. Check one or more categories as is applicable.
# Answer Response %
1 Federal Government buildings 3 50%
2 Local or State Government buildings 3 50%
3 Emergency Services, Fire, Police 2 33%
4 Healthcare 1 17%
5 Utilities 3 50%
6 K‐12 Schools 2 33%
7 Universities 3 50%
8 Office and Commercial 4 67%
9 Industrial 5 83%
10 Residential 3 50%
11 High Occupancy, convention centers 3 50%
12 Others (please list) 1 17%
7. How many years experience do you have in your profession? (Please indicate below)
# Answer Average Value Standard Deviation
1 Years 27.00 8.46
Total 27.00 8.46
8. Have you ever been in an earthquake?
# Answer Response %
1 Yes 5 83%
2 No 1 17%
Total 6 100%
Appendix F, Mechanical/Electrical Engineer Responses Page F‐4
9. Are you familiar with any codes, design guidelines, or standards that govern the installation of nonstructural and equipment seismic restraints in buildings?
# Answer Response %
1 Yes 6 100%
2 No 0 0%
Total 6 100%
10. Please list the codes that you are familiar with:
#1 #2 #3 #4 #5
NY Build Code UBC IBC BOCA ASCE7‐05
IBC IMC IPC IFC Oregon Mechanical Specialty Code
NFPA 13 Uniform Plumbing Code
California Plumbing code
International building code
Uniform building code
UBC IBC State of California Title 8
NFPA 13
SMACNA SEISMIC RESTRAINT MANUAL (Guidelines for Mechanical Systems)
NC Building Code ASCE 7‐05
Appendix F, Mechanical/Electrical Engineer Responses Page F‐5
11. Please indicate how familiar you are with the following codes:
# Question 1‐ Not at all
familiar
2‐ Somewhat familiar
3‐ Moderately familiar
4‐ Very Familiar
5‐ Extremely familiar
Responses Mean
1 The International Building Code
0 0 2 4 0 6 3.67
2
ASCE 7‐05 (Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and Other Structures)
4 1 0 1 0 6 1.67
3
ASCE 31‐03 (Seismic Evaluation of Existing Buildings)
4 1 0 0 0 5 1.20
4 ASCE 41‐06 4 1 0 0 0 5 1.20
5 NFPA 0 1 0 4 1 6 3.83
Statistic The International Building Code
ASCE 7‐05 (Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and Other Structures)
ASCE 31‐03 (Seismic Evaluation of Existing
Buildings)
ASCE 41‐06
NFPA
Mean 3.67 1.67 1.20 1.20 3.83
Variance 0.27 1.47 0.20 0.20 0.97
Standard Deviation
0.52 1.21 0.45 0.45 0.98
Total Responses
6 6 5 5 6
Appendix F, Mechanical/Electrical Engineer Responses Page F‐6
12. When constructing a building in, are you required to to abide by:
# Question Yes No I Don't Know
Responses Mean
1 The International Building Code 6 0 0 6 1.00
2 ASCE 7‐05 (Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and Other Structures)
2 1 3 6 2.17
3 ASCE 31‐03 (Seismic Evaluation of Existing Buildings) 0 1 5 6 2.83
4 ASCE 41‐06 0 1 4 5 2.80
5 NFPA 4 0 2 6 1.67
Statistic The International Building Code
ASCE 7‐05 (Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and Other Structures)
ASCE 31‐03 (Seismic Evaluation of Existing
Buildings)
ASCE 41‐06
NFPA
Mean 1.00 2.17 2.83 2.80 1.67
Variance 0.00 0.97 0.17 0.20 1.07
Standard Deviation
0.00 0.98 0.41 0.45 1.03
Total Responses
6 6 6 5 6
13. What are the penalties for noncompliance with The International Building Code?
Text Response
do not know
Prosecution, loss of license, no occupancy permit
I don't know
Do not get the Certificate of Occupancy
fine, or imprisonment
A change order for the contract to bring the building in compliance. I know of no fines or other penalties.
Appendix F, Mechanical/Electrical Engineer Responses Page F‐7
14. Are you aware of any specific suggested nonstructural seismic restraint guidelines produced by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA)?
# Answer Response %
1 Yes 1 20%
2 No 4 80%
Total 5 100%
15. How important do you think earthquake safety standards for are to other professionals in the building community?
# Answer Response %
1 1‐ not at all important 0 0%
2 2 0 0%
3 3 0 0%
4 4‐ moderately important 0 0%
5 5 1 20%
6 6 1 20%
7 7‐ extremely important 3 60%
Total 5 100%
16. How important are nonstructural safety standards to you?
# Answer Response %
1 1‐ not at all important 0 0%
2 2 0 0%
3 3 0 0%
4 4‐ moderately important 0 0%
5 5 0 0%
6 6 2 40%
7 7‐ extremely important 3 60%
Total 5 100%
Appendix F, Mechanical/Electrical Engineer Responses Page F‐8
17. In your geographic area, how important is the installation of earthquake anchorage and the bracing of nonstructural items such as walls, ceilings, lighting fixtures, firewater piping, and ductwork?
# Answer Response %
1 1‐ not at all important 0 0%
2 2 0 0%
3 3 0 0%
4 4‐ moderately important 1 20%
5 5 0 0%
6 6 1 20%
7 7‐ extremely important 3 60%
Total 5 100%
18. In your geographic area, how important is the installation of seismic anchorage and the bracing of building components such as electrical transformers and electrical switchgear, and mechanical equipment?
# Answer Response %
1 1‐ not at all important 0 0%
2 2 0 0%
3 3 0 0%
4 4‐ moderately important 1 20%
5 5 0 0%
6 6 1 20%
7 7‐ extremely important 3 60%
Total 5 100%
Appendix F, Mechanical/Electrical Engineer Responses Page F‐9
19. In your geographic area, how important is the seismic anchorage and bracing design of facade elements, such as exterior panels and windows?
# Answer Response %
1 1‐ not at all important 0 0%
2 2 0 0%
3 3 0 0%
4 4‐ moderately important 2 40%
5 5 0 0%
6 6 1 20%
7 7‐ extremely important 2 40%
Total 5 100%
20. In your geographic area, how important is the seismic anchorage and bracing design of process equipment in an industrial facility or utility?
# Answer Response %
1 1‐ not at all important 0 0%
2 2 0 0%
3 3 0 0%
4 4‐ moderately important 2 40%
5 5 0 0%
6 6 1 20%
7 7‐ extremely important 2 40%
Total 5 100%
Appendix F, Mechanical/Electrical Engineer Responses Page F‐10
21. If a major earthquake were to occur in your area and if nonstructural or equipment items (such as those defined earlier) were NOT anchored or braced in a building, to what extent do you believe injuries or death would occur?
# Answer Response %
1 Injuries or death definitely would not happen
0 0%
2 Injuries or death probably would not happen
0 0%
3 Injuries or death may or may not happen 0 0%
4 Injuries or death probably would happen 1 20%
5 Injuries or death definitely would happen 4 80%
Total 5 100%
22. If a major earthquake were to occur in your area and if equipment or nonstructural restraints were absent in a structure, to what extent do you believe that major damage would occur to the structure?
# Answer Response %
1 Major damage definitely would not happen
0 0%
2 Major damage probably would not happen
0 0%
3 Major damage may or may not happen 0 0%
4 Major damage probably would happen 2 40%
5 Major damage definitely would happen 3 60%
Total 5 100%
Appendix F, Mechanical/Electrical Engineer Responses Page F‐11
23. If a major earthquake were to occur in your area, to what extent do you believe that damage to nonstructural or equipment items could result in severe enough damage to cause major facility downtime?
# Answer Response %
1 Major facility downtime definitely would not happen
0 0%
2 Major facility downtime probably would not happen
0 0%
3 Major facility downtime may or may not happen
0 0%
4 Major facility downtime probably would happen
2 40%
5 Major facility downtime definitely would happen
3 60%
Total 5 100%
24. Which do you believe is more likely in your area (choose one):
# Answer Response %
1 Failure of, or significant damage to, nonstructural elements and systems during a moderate earthquake
5 100%
2 Structural collapse during a moderate earthquake
0 0%
Total 5 100%
Appendix F, Mechanical/Electrical Engineer Responses Page F‐12
25. In your opinion, when a structure is to be built, who is responsible to be familiar with nonstructural seismic safety design standards? (Check all that apply)
# Answer Response %
1 Architect 4 80%
2 Structural engineer 5 100%
3 Civil engineer 3 60%
4 Mechanical engineer 5 100%
5 Electrical engineer 5 100%
6 General contractor 4 80%
7 Building subcontractor 4 80%
8 Equipment manufacturer 4 80%
9 Equipment supplier 1 20%
10 Supplier or installer of specialty seismic bracing devices
4 80%
11 Building inspector 5 100%
12 Building plan reviewer 3 60%
13 Construction project manager 4 80%
14 Overall design project manager 2 40%
15 Other (please specify) 0 0%
Appendix F, Mechanical/Electrical Engineer Responses Page F‐13
26. In your opinion, when a structure is to be built, who has the primary responsibility to be familiar with nonstructural seismic safety design standards? (Select one)
# Answer Response %
x1 Architect 0 0%
x2 Structural engineer 2 40%
x3 Civil engineer 0 0%
x4 Mechanical engineer 3 60%
x5 Electrical engineer 0 0%
x6 General contractor 0 0%
x7 Building subcontractor 0 0%
x8 Equipment manufacturer 0 0%
x9 Equipment supplier 0 0%
x10 Supplier or installer of specialty seismic bracing devices
0 0%
x11 Building inspector 0 0%
x12 Building plan reviewer 0 0%
x13 Construction project manager 0 0%
x14 Overall design project manager 0 0%
x15 Other (please specify) 0 0%
Total 5 100%
Appendix F, Mechanical/Electrical Engineer Responses Page F‐14
27. In your opinion, who have you found to be the most informed about nonstructural seismic safety design standards. (Select one)
# Answer Response %
1 Architect 0 0%
2 Structural engineer 2 40%
3 Civil engineer 0 0%
4 Mechanical engineer 1 20%
5 Electrical engineer 0 0%
6 General contractor 0 0%
7 Building subcontractor 0 0%
8 Equipment manufacturer 0 0%
9 Equipment supplier 0 0%
10 Supplier or installer of specialty seismic bracing devices
1 20%
11 Building inspector 0 0%
12 Building plan reviewer 1 20%
13 Construction project manager 0 0%
14 Overall design project manager 0 0%
15 Other (please specify) 0 0%
Total 5 100%
Appendix F, Mechanical/Electrical Engineer Responses Page F‐15
28. In your opinion, who have you found to be the least informed about nonstructural seismic safety design standards. (Select one)
# Answer Response %
1 Architect 2 40%
2 Structural engineer 0 0%
3 Civil engineer 0 0%
4 Mechanical engineer 0 0%
5 Electrical engineer 0 0%
6 General contractor 0 0%
7 Building subcontractor 1 20%
8 Equipment manufacturer 1 20%
9 Equipment supplier 1 20%
10 Supplier or installer of specialty seismic bracing devices
0 0%
11 Building inspector 0 0%
12 Building plan reviewer 0 0%
13 Construction project manager 0 0%
14 Overall design project manager 0 0%
15 Other (please specify) 0 0%
Total 5 100%
Appendix F, Mechanical/Electrical Engineer Responses Page F‐16
29. Who do you believe is responsible for compliance with nonstructural seismic safety design standards? [Please rank order your responses with a '1' representing the party most responsible for compliance, a '2' representing...
# Answer 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Responses
1 Architect 1 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 5
2 Structural engineer 3 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5
3 Civil engineer 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 3
4 Mechanical engineer 3 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5
5 Electrical engineer 1 2 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 5
6 General contractor 1 0 0 0 2 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5
7 Building subcontractor
1 0 0 0 0 2 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5
8 Equipment manufacturer
0 1 0 0 1 0 2 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 5
9 Equipment supplier 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 3
10 Supplier or installer of specialty seismic bracing devices
1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 2 0 0 0 0 5
11 Building inspector 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 5
12 Building plan reviewer
0 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 4
13 Construction project manager
0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 5
14 Overall design project manager
0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 5
15 Other (please specify)
1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
Total 12 8 6 3 4 5 4 3 5 4 4 3 2 2 0
Appendix F, Mechanical/Electrical Engineer Responses Page F‐17
30. In your opinion, who has ultimate responsibility to see that buildings are compliant with nonstructural seismic safety design standards? (Select one)
# Answer Response %
1 Architect 0 0%
2 Structural engineer 1 20%
3 Civil engineer 0 0%
4 Mechanical engineer 1 20%
5 Electrical engineer 0 0%
6 General contractor 1 20%
7 Building subcontractor 0 0%
8 Equipment manufacturer 0 0%
9 Equipment supplier 0 0%
10 Supplier or installer of specialty seismic bracing devices
0 0%
11 Building inspector 1 20%
12 Building plan reviewer 0 0%
13 Construction project manager 0 0%
14 Overall design project manager 0 0%
15 Other (please specify) 1 20%
Total 5 100%
31. Given that there are standards governing the correct installation of nonstructural and equipment seismic restraints in buildings, how well do you believe these standards are complied with in your building community?
# Answer Response %
1 1‐ never complied with 0 0%
2 2‐ sometimes complied with 0 0%
3 3‐ usually complied with 3 60%
4 4‐ always complied with 2 40%
Total 5 100%
Appendix F, Mechanical/Electrical Engineer Responses Page F‐18
33. In cases where you believe nonstructural items in buildings and facilities have been designed and constructed with good seismic anchorage and bracing measures, why has this occurred? [Check all that apply]
# Answer Response %
1 The owner required and checked for compliance with these measures
0 0%
2 The government or other oversight group checked for compliance with these measures
2 40%
3 It was important to me in my professional capacity
3 60%
4 It was required for financing or insurance to be approved
1 20%
5 It was required before the contractor, subcontractor, and/or equipment suppliers could be paid
0 0%
6 It was required by design professionals 4 80%
7 Equipment suppliers provided anchorage kits for this purpose
0 0%
8 The specialty contractors knew what to do and performed this work correctly
1 20%
9 It was a bid item, and therefore had to be done for the contractor to be paid
2 40%
Appendix F, Mechanical/Electrical Engineer Responses Page F‐19
10 It is a strictly enforced provision 1 20%
11 Building inspectors enforce these measures
4 80%
12 It is done as a matter of standard practice in my profession
3 60%
13 The owner hired a specialist in this area to design and/or construct these measures
0 0%
14 It occurred for the work my firm was involved in, but not for others in the same facility
0 0%
15 Other (please specify) 0 0%
16 Other (please specify) 0 0%
17 Other (please specify) 0 0%
Appendix F, Mechanical/Electrical Engineer Responses Page F‐20
34. Please rank FIVE (5) from the list below in order of causal forces by dragging and dropping them to their respective order:
# Answer Responses
x1 The owner required and checked for compliance with these measures 0
x2 The government or other oversight group checked for compliance with these measures
1
x3 It was important to me in my professional capacity 2
x4 It was required for financing or insurance to be approved 1
x5 It was required before the contractor, subcontractor, and/or equipment suppliers could be paid
0
x6 It was required by design professionals 3
x7 Equipment suppliers provided anchorage kits for this purpose 0
x8 The specialty contractors knew what to do and performed this work correctly 1
x9 It was a bid item, and therefore had to be done for the contractor to be paid 2
x10 It is a strictly enforced provision 1
x11 Building inspectors enforce these measures 2
x12 It is done as a matter of standard practice in my profession 2
x13 The owner hired a specialist in this area to design and/or construct these measures 0
x14 It occurred for the work my firm was involved in, but not for others in the same facility 0
x15 Other (please specify) 0
x16 Other (please specify) 0
x17 Other (please specify) 0
Total
Appendix F, Mechanical/Electrical Engineer Responses Page F‐21
35. To the extent that you see noncompliance with nonstructural and equipment seismic restraint standards in your building community, why do you think the noncompliance occurs? (Check all that apply)
# Answer Response %
1 I have never seen compliance 0 0%
2 The likelihood of a damaging earthquake in this area is too low to justify complying with the standards.
0 0%
3 It's not against the law to fail to comply with the standards; compliance will happen when it's the law.
0 0%
4 It is too time consuming to comply with these standards.
0 0%
5 It is too expensive to comply with the standards.
1 25%
6 There is little regulatory enforcement of compliance with the standards.
2 50%
7 The standards are poorly designed. 0 0%
8 The standards are too difficult to understand.
1 25%
9 There is little incentive to comply with these standards.
0 0%
10 There is a lack of compensation for oversight compliance.
0 0%
11 No one is really interested in making sure the standards are complied with.
0 0%
12 No one is adequately trained to make sure the standards are complied with.
3 75%
13
There is a communication breakdown between everyone involved in constructing the building that contributes to noncompliance.
1 25%
14 There are liability concerns that prevent compliance.
0 0%
15 No one knows who is ultimately responsible for compliance.
2 50%
16 Everyone passes the buck to someone else, so compliance doesn't occur.
1 25%
Appendix F, Mechanical/Electrical Engineer Responses Page F‐22
17 Compliance just falls through the cracks. 2 50%
18 Penalties for noncompliance aren't severe enough to make compliance a high priority.
1 25%
19 Everyone just assumes someone else will make sure that compliance occurs.
0 0%
20 No one is qualified to certify compliance. 0 0%
21 The likely consequences of an earthquake in my area are to minimal to justify the cost and effort of compliance.
1 25%
22 Other (please specify) 1 25%
23 Other (please specify) 0 0%
24 Other (please specify) 0 0%
Appendix F, Mechanical/Electrical Engineer Responses Page F‐23
36. Please rank order the reasons why you think noncompliance occurs. Include your own reasons in the ordering if you add any to the list. If there are more than five reasons in the list, rank only the top five.1 ‐ Most important
# Answer Responses
x1 I have never seen compliance 0
x2 The likelihood of a damaging earthquake in this area is too low to justify complying with the standards.
0
x3 It's not against the law to fail to comply with the standards; compliance will happen when it's the law.
0
x4 It is too time consuming to comply with these standards. 0
x5 It is too expensive to comply with the standards. 1
x6 There is little regulatory enforcement of compliance with the standards. 2
x7 The standards are poorly designed. 0
x8 The standards are too difficult to understand. 1
x9 There is little incentive to comply with these standards. 0
x10 There is a lack of compensation for oversight compliance. 0
x11 No one is really interested in making sure the standards are complied with. 0
x12 No one is adequately trained to make sure the standards are complied with. 3
x13 There is a communication breakdown between everyone involved in constructing the building that contributes to noncompliance.
1
x14 There are liability concerns that prevent compliance. 0
x15 No one knows who is ultimately responsible for compliance. 2
x16 Everyone passes the buck to someone else, so compliance doesn't occur. 1
x17 Compliance just falls through the cracks. 2
x18 Penalties for noncompliance aren't severe enough to make compliance a high priority. 1
x19 Everyone just assumes someone else will make sure that compliance occurs. 0
x20 No one is qualified to certify compliance. 0
x21 The likely consequences of an earthquake in my area are to minimal to justify the cost and effort of compliance.
1
x22 Other (please specify) 0
x23 Other (please specify) 0
x24 Other (please specify) 0
Total
Appendix F, Mechanical/Electrical Engineer Responses Page F‐24
37. Are you personally aware of buildings having been constructed in your area that were not compliant with nonstructural and equipment seismic safety design standards?
# Answer Response %
1 Yes 3 60%
2 No 2 40%
Total 5 100%
38. How prevalent is noncompliance?
# Answer Response %
1 Very common 1 20%
2 Occasional 2 40%
3 Rare 2 40%
Total 5 100%
39. In cases where nonstructural items are not adequately anchored and braced for earthquake loads, what are the primary factors that could lead to good design and construction practices? (Please check as many as apply.)
# Answer Response %
1
New technical provisions in the building codes, i.e. improvement in the technical requirements, could lead to good design and construction practices.
4 80%
2 Stricter building codes enforcement could lead to good design and construction practices.
3 60%
3 Better education of design professionals could lead to good design and construction practices.
5 100%
Appendix F, Mechanical/Electrical Engineer Responses Page F‐25
4 Better education of owners could lead to good design and construction practices.
3 60%
5 Better education of contractors and equipment suppliers could lead to good design and construction practices.
5 100%
6 Design fees specifically allocated to this work could lead to good design and construction practices.
2 40%
7
More federal grants for mitigation of nonstructural hazards during remodels could lead to good design and construction practices.
2 40%
8 Better internal quality control by design professionals could lead to good design and construction practices.
4 80%
9
The creation of a new system, with specific professional licensing requirements for this type of work, could lead to good design and construction practices.
3 60%
10 Fairer enforcement of standards across all projects could lead to good design and construction practices.
4 80%
11 Financial incentives, such as reduced insurance costs, could lead to good design and construction practices.
2 40%
12
Better public education of hazards posed by nonstructural items in an earthquake could lead to good design and construction practices.
4 80%
13
Punishment of design professionals and contractors or others associated with non‐compliant buildings or facilities could lead to good design and construction practices.
4 80%
14 Other (please specify) 0 0%
Appendix F, Mechanical/Electrical Engineer Responses Page F‐26
40. Please rank these in order of their causal force by dragging them into their respective order:
# Answer Responses
x1 New technical provisions in the building codes, i.e. improvement in the technical requirements, could lead to good design and construction practices.
3
x2 Stricter building codes enforcement could lead to good design and construction practices.
2
x3 Better education of design professionals could lead to good design and construction practices.
4
x4 Better education of owners could lead to good design and construction practices. 3
x5 Better education of contractors and equipment suppliers could lead to good design and construction practices.
4
x6 Design fees specifically allocated to this work could lead to good design and construction practices.
2
x7 More federal grants for mitigation of nonstructural hazards during remodels could lead to good design and construction practices.
2
x8 Better internal quality control by design professionals could lead to good design and construction practices.
3
x9 The creation of a new system, with specific professional licensing requirements for this type of work, could lead to good design and construction practices.
3
x10 Fairer enforcement of standards across all projects could lead to good design and construction practices.
3
x11 Financial incentives, such as reduced insurance costs, could lead to good design and construction practices.
2
x12 Better public education of hazards posed by nonstructural items in an earthquake could lead to good design and construction practices.
4
x13 Punishment of design professionals and contractors or others associated with non‐compliant buildings or facilities could lead to good design and construction practices.
4
x14 Other (please specify) 0
Total
Appendix F, Mechanical/Electrical Engineer Responses Page F‐27
41. Do you have a line item in your bid process for nonstructural seismic bracing and anchorage?
# Answer Response %
1 Yes 1 33%
2 No 2 67%
Total 3 100%
42. Do your mechanical/electrical/specialty subcontractors currently address nonstructural seismic requirements?
# Answer Response %
1 Yes 3 100%
2 No 0 0%
Total 3 100%
43. How do your mechanical/electrical/specialty subcontractors currently address nonstructural seismic requirements?
Text Response
Subcontract to a structural engineer
Tie downs and lateral braces
44. What percentage of an MEP budget is necessary to properly address nonstructural seismic requirements?
# Answer Average Value Standard Deviation
1 % 7.50 3.54
Total 7.50 3.54
Appendix F, Mechanical/Electrical Engineer Responses Page F‐28
45. How important is nonstructural seismic bracing and equipment anchorage? [1 = not at all important, 10 = extremely important]
# Answer Response %
1 1 0 0%
2 2 0 0%
3 3 0 0%
4 4 0 0%
5 5 0 0%
6 6 0 0%
7 7 0 0%
8 8 1 33%
9 9 1 33%
10 10 1 33%
Total 3 100%
46. Which engineering design discipline or disciplines should be primarily responsible for nonstructural seismic safety design? Select all that apply:
# Answer Response %
1 Structural engineering 3 100%
2 Civil Engineering 1 33%
3 Mechanical Engineering 3 100%
4 Electrical Engineering 3 100%
Appendix F, Mechanical/Electrical Engineer Responses Page F‐29
47. For the ten most recent projects you completed, how many had seismic bracing and equipment anchorage in conformance with current codes?
# Answer Response %
1 1 0 0%
2 2 0 0%
3 3 0 0%
4 4 0 0%
5 5 0 0%
6 6 0 0%
7 7 0 0%
8 8 0 0%
9 9 0 0%
10 10 3 100%
Total 3 100%
48. How do you know your assessment (the number that conformed to codes) is correct?
Text Response
Best of knowledge
required as a base of design
Because I checked the seismic requirements
49. Do you believe that some buildings do not require seismic design of nonstructural items?
# Answer Response %
1 Yes 2 67%
2 No 1 33%
Total 3 100%
Appendix F, Mechanical/Electrical Engineer Responses Page F‐30
51. Do you believe that typical details and/or performance specifications are an adequate way of accomplishing seismic design for nonstructural items?
# Answer Response %
1 Yes 1 50%
2 No 1 50%
Total 2 100%
52. If typical details given in design specifications do not conform to the actual piping layout equipment configuration, or other factors, who is responsible for developing a workable design? [Select one of the following...
# Answer Response %
1 Architect 0 0%
2 Structural engineer 0 0%
3 Mechanical engineer 1 50%
4 Electrical engineer 0 0%
5 General contractor 0 0%
6 Specialty contractor 1 50%
7 Equipment supplier 0 0%
Total 2 100%
Appendix F, Mechanical/Electrical Engineer Responses Page F‐31
53. How qualified are equipment contractors for constructing nonstructural seismic bracing and anchorage? [1 = not at all qualified, extremely well qualified = 7]
# Answer Response %
1 1 0 0%
2 2 1 50%
3 3 0 0%
4 4 0 0%
5 5 1 50%
6 6 0 0%
7 7 0 0%
Total 2 100%
54. When you provide project budget estimates, do you typically include a line item for nonstructural bracing and anchorage?
# Answer Response %
1 Yes 1 50%
2 No 1 50%
Total 2 100%
55. Who do you think should be responsible for seismic design?
Text Response
Structural engineer, or other specialty with seismic design
All design professionals, backup up by knowledgeable code officials.
Appendix F, Mechanical/Electrical Engineer Responses Page F‐32
57. In cases where nonstructural items are not adequately anchored and braced for earthquake loads, what are the primary factors that could lead to good design and construction practices?
Text Response
Provide a code which is technically correct but easier to read and enforce. Provide a "cookbook" approach for standard items such as piping, ductwork, equipment, transformers, etc. which can be implemented and enforced easily. Provide alternate guidelines for special cases or as an incentive for less costly alternatives.
58. In your opinion, who have you found to be the least informed about nonstructural seismic safety design standards.
# Answer Response %
1 Architect 0 0%
2 Structural engineer 0 0%
3 Civil engineer 0 0%
4 Mechanical engineer 0 0%
5 Electrical engineer 0 0%
6 General contractor 0 0%
7 Building subcontractor 1 50%
8 Equipment manufacturer 1 50%
9 Equipment supplier 0 0%
10 Supplier or installer of specialty seismic bracing devices
0 0%
11 Building inspector 0 0%
12 Building Plan Reviewer 0 0%
13 Construction project manager 0 0%
14 Other (please specify) 0 0%
Total 2 100%
Appendix F, Mechanical/Electrical Engineer Responses Page F‐33
59. Rank the effectiveness of education to increase familiarity with the standards.
# Answer Response %
1 High probability of increasing compliance 5 100%
2 Medium probability of increasing compliance
0 0%
3 Low probability of increasing compliance 0 0%
Total 5 100%
60. Who needs to be educated so that compliance will increase?
# Answer Response %
1 Architect 0 0%
2 Structural engineer 0 0%
3 Civil engineer 0 0%
4 Mechanical engineer 0 0%
5 Electrical engineer 0 0%
6 General contractor 0 0%
7 Building subcontractor 1 20%
8 Equipment manufacturer 0 0%
9 Equipment supplier 0 0%
10 Supplier or installer of specialty seismic bracing devices
0 0%
11 Building inspector 2 40%
12 Building plan reviewer 1 20%
13 Construction project manager 0 0%
14 Overall design project manager 0 0%
15 Owner 1 20%
16 Other (please specify) 0 0%
Total 5 100%
Appendix F, Mechanical/Electrical Engineer Responses Page F‐34
61. Rank the effectiveness of enhancing enforcement of the current standards.
# Answer Response %
1 High probability of increasing compliance 5 100%
2 Medium probability of increasing compliance
0 0%
3 Low probability of increasing compliance 0 0%
Total 5 100%
62. How could enforcement of the standards be enhanced?
Text Response
Make sure all building inspectors are educated on this standard
Specified requirements as part of the project construction documents
The standards to be adopted by local codes
Provide a simpler code
63. Rank the effectiveness of reducing financial constraints associated with compliance.
# Answer Response %
1 High probability of increasing compliance 2 40%
2 Medium probability of increasing compliance
2 40%
3 Low probability of increasing compliance 1 20%
Total 5 100%
Appendix F, Mechanical/Electrical Engineer Responses Page F‐35
64. What financial constraints make compliance difficult?
Text Response
Giving a cost incentive for permitting or by insurance underwriters
Budget saving or profit pursuit could be the problem of compliance.
The cost of design and installation, when not needed.
65. In your opinion, how could the financial burden associated with code compliance be reduced?
Text Response
If it is used more, then manufacturers could see higher volume and reduce upfront costs
Provide a simpler code, with reasonable basic anchoring hardware.
66. Rank the effectiveness of creating incentives for compliance.
# Answer Response %
1 High probability of increasing compliance 4 80%
2 Medium probability of increasing compliance
0 0%
3 Low probability of increasing compliance 1 20%
Total 5 100%
67. Do you know of any existing incentive programs?
# Answer Response %
1 Yes 0 0%
2 No 4 100%
Total 4 100%
Appendix F, Mechanical/Electrical Engineer Responses Page F‐36
68. Rank the effectiveness of assessing penalties for non‐compliance.
# Answer Response %
1 High probability of increasing compliance 2 40%
2 Medium probability of increasing compliance
2 40%
3 Low probability of increasing compliance 1 20%
Total 5 100%
69. Rank the effectiveness of clearly defining who is responsible for compliance in the standards and codes.
# Answer Response %
1 High probability of increasing compliance 4 80%
2 Medium probability of increasing compliance
1 20%
3 Low probability of increasing compliance 0 0%
Total 5 100%
70. Rank the effectiveness of creating certification for individuals responsible for ensuring compliance.
# Answer Response %
1 High probability of increasing compliance 2 40%
2 Medium probability of increasing compliance
2 40%
3 Low probability of increasing compliance 1 20%
Total 5 100%
Appendix F, Mechanical/Electrical Engineer Responses Page F‐37
71. Who needs to be certified so that compliance will ensured?
# Answer Response %
1 Architect 0 0%
2 Structural engineer 1 50%
3 Civil engineer 0 0%
4 Mechanical engineer 1 50%
5 Electrical engineer 0 0%
6 General contractor 2 100%
7 Building subcontractor 2 100%
8 Equipment manufacturer 1 50%
9 Equipment supplier 1 50%
10 Supplier or installer of specialty seismic bracing devices
1 50%
11 Building inspector 1 50%
12 Building plan reviewer 1 50%
13 Construction project manager 0 0%
72. What qualifications would be necessary for a person to be certified?
Text Response
familiarity with all types of systems
pass certification exam, obtain training certificate for related topics
73. Rank the effectiveness of creating earthquake insurance incentives to stimulate compliance.
# Answer Response %
1 High probability of increasing compliance 3 60%
2 Medium probability of increasing compliance
2 40%
3 Low probability of increasing compliance 0 0%
Total 5 100%
Appendix F, Mechanical/Electrical Engineer Responses Page F‐38
75. Rank the effectiveness of requiring budgeting of nonstructural seismic work in the bid process.
# Answer Response %
1 High probability of increasing compliance 1 20%
2 Medium probability of increasing compliance
1 20%
3 Low probability of increasing compliance 3 60%
Total 5 100%
76. Rank the effectiveness of providing detailed design standards to assist in the process of complying.
# Answer Response %
1 High probability of increasing compliance 1 20%
2 Medium probability of increasing compliance
3 60%
3 Low probability of increasing compliance 1 20%
Total 5 100%
77. You mentioned that providing detailed design standards to assist in the process of complying. What, if any, detailed design standards do you know of
Text Response
The current design standards are too generic, requiring significant design effort for small items. Provide simpler code.
Appendix F, Mechanical/Electrical Engineer Responses Page F‐39
78. Rank the effectiveness of increasing the availability of qualified specialty contractors to ensure compliance.
# Answer Response %
1 High probability of increasing compliance 2 40%
2 Medium probability of increasing compliance
1 20%
3 Low probability of increasing compliance 2 40%
Total 5 100%
79. Rank the effectiveness of requiring equipment suppliers to design and install seismic anchorage and bracing systems.
# Answer Response %
1 High probability of increasing compliance 4 80%
2 Medium probability of increasing compliance
1 20%
3 Low probability of increasing compliance 0 0%
Total 5 100%
80. Rank the importance of first hand knowledge of earthquake effects in achieving compliance.
# Answer Response %
1 High probability of increasing compliance 3 60%
2 Medium probability of increasing compliance
2 40%
3 Low probability of increasing compliance 0 0%
Total 5 100%
Appendix F, Mechanical/Electrical Engineer Responses Page F‐40
81. Rank the importance of regulatory issues in achieving compliance.
# Answer Response %
1 High probability of increasing compliance 2 40%
2 Medium probability of increasing compliance
3 60%
3 Low probability of increasing compliance 0 0%
Total 5 100%
82. Rank the importance of design process issues in achieving compliance.
# Answer Response %
1 High probability of increasing compliance 3 60%
2 Medium probability of increasing compliance
2 40%
3 Low probability of increasing compliance 0 0%
Total 5 100%
83. What is single most important action that you believe would result in widespread use of seismic bracing of nonstructural items, in a manner which conforms to codes and design guidelines?
Text Response
Have a specific chapter in the building code that addresses it.
Safety of personnel during an earthquake and Life Safety equipment would still function
Enforcement in the plan check and inspection stages.
Provide a simpler "cookbook" type code. The code needs to be easily read and understood by design professionals, contractors, and code officials.
Identification of Methods to Achieve Successful Implementation of Nonstructural and Equipment Seismic Restraints
Appendix G, Civil Engineers Page G‐1
Appendix G Civil Engineers Electronic Survey Results 1.0 Introduction
This appendix provides a summary of data gathered from civil engineers, using the on line Qualtrics survey tool. Questions are listed in the order that they appeared to respondents.
2. Please identify your primary profession by selecting ONE of the buttons below
# Answer Response %
1 Facility/Building owner 0 0%
2 Facility manager 0 0%
4 Architect 0 0%
5 Structural engineer 0 0%
6 Civil engineer 13 100%
7 Mechanical or Electrical engineer 0 0%
9 General Contractor 0 0%
10 Building Subcontractor 0 0%
11 Equipment manufacturer (please specify the type of equipment you manufacture, e.g., ductwork bracing)
0 0%
13 Supplier or installer of specialty seismic bracing devices
0 0%
14 Building inspector 0 0%
15 Building plan reviewer 0 0%
17 University professor (please specify field of expertise)
0 0%
18 Other (SEE NOTES) 0 0%
Total 13 100%
Identification of Methods to Achieve Successful Implementation of Nonstructural and Equipment Seismic Restraints
Appendix G, Civil Engineers Page G‐2
3. How many years have you been employed
# Answer Average Value Standard Deviation
1 Years 26.89 11.61
Total 26.89 11.61
4. What is the primary state in which you do most of your business?
# Answer Response %
1 California 6 50%
2 Utah 1 8%
3 Washington 1 8%
4 Other (please name) 4 33%
Total 12 100%
5. In what state do you reside?
# Answer Response %
1 California 6 75%
2 Utah and Washington 1 13%
3 Washington 1 13%
Total 8 100%
6. What is the highest level of education you have achieved?
# Answer Response %
1 Less than high school 0 0%
2 High school graduate or equivalent 0 0%
3 Trade/Technical school graduate (please specify your area of study)
0 0%
4 Some college 0 0%
5 College graduate (please specify your major field of study)
5 42%
Identification of Methods to Achieve Successful Implementation of Nonstructural and Equipment Seismic Restraints
Appendix G, Civil Engineers Page G‐3
6 Post‐graduate degree (master's, doctoral, other) (please specify your degree and area of study)
7 58%
Total 12 100%
Trade/Technical school graduate (please specify your area of study)
College graduate (please specify your major field of study)
Post‐graduate degree (master's, doctoral, other) (please specify your degree and area of study)
BS in Architectural Engineer Civil‐Structural
Water/wastewater geotechnical
BS CE master of public policy
Civil Engineering MS Civil Engineering
Civil Engr.
7. Please identify the types of structures or facilities with which you have experience. Check one or more categories as is applicable.
# Answer Response %
1 Federal Government buildings 1 9%
2 Local or State Government buildings 2 18%
3 Emergency Services, Fire, Police 3 27%
4 Healthcare 1 9%
5 Utilities 8 73%
6 K‐12 Schools 2 18%
7 Universities 2 18%
8 Office and Commercial 5 45%
9 Industrial 4 36%
10 Residential 3 27%
11 High Occupancy, convention centers 1 9%
12 Others (please list) 2 18%
Identification of Methods to Achieve Successful Implementation of Nonstructural and Equipment Seismic Restraints
Appendix G, Civil Engineers Page G‐4
8. How many years experience do you have in your profession? (Please indicate below)
# Answer Average Value Standard Deviation
1 Years 26.40 11.31
Total 26.40 11.31
9. Have you ever been in an earthquake?
# Answer Response %
1 Yes 10 83%
2 No 2 17%
Total 12 100%
10. Are you familiar with any codes, design guidelines, or standards that govern the installation of nonstructural and equipment seismic restraints in buildings?
# Answer Response %
1 Yes 9 75%
2 No 3 25%
Total 12 100%
Identification of Methods to Achieve Successful Implementation of Nonstructural and Equipment Seismic Restraints
Appendix G, Civil Engineers Page G‐5
11. Please list the codes that you are familiar with:
#1 #2 #3 #4 #5
IBC Mass Building Code
IBC
2001 CBC (1997 UBC) 2007 CBC (2006 IBC & ASCE 7‐05)
TCLEE water wastewater guidelines
UBC
Seattle Building Code International Building Code ASCE 7‐05
AWWA D100‐05
UBC 97 IBC 2001 IBC 2003
CBC 2007 ACI 318 ASCE 7‐05
LA CITY ZONING CODE
AISC 341, 358
UBC UMC UPC UFC
EOTA ‐ ETAG FEMA
12. Please indicate how familiar you are with the following codes:
# Question 1‐ Not at all
familiar
2‐ Somewhat familiar
3‐ Moderately familiar
4‐ Very Familiar
5‐ Extremely familiar
Responses Mean
1 The International Building Code
1 2 3 4 1 11 3.18
2
ASCE 7‐05 (Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and Other Structures)
4 1 1 3 1 10 2.60
3
ASCE 31‐03 (Seismic Evaluation of Existing Buildings)
3 2 3 2 1 11 2.64
4 ASCE 41‐06 6 2 0 1 2 11 2.18
5 NFPA 4 4 3 0 0 11 1.91
Identification of Methods to Achieve Successful Implementation of Nonstructural and Equipment Seismic Restraints
Appendix G, Civil Engineers Page G‐6
Statistic The International Building Code
ASCE 7‐05 (Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and Other Structures)
ASCE 31‐03 (Seismic Evaluation of Existing
Buildings)
ASCE 41‐06
NFPA
Mean 3.18 2.60 2.64 2.18 1.91
Variance 1.36 2.49 1.85 2.76 0.69
Standard Deviation
1.17 1.58 1.36 1.66 0.83
Total Responses
11 10 11 11 11
13. When constructing a building in , are you required to abide by:
# Question Yes No I Don't Know
Responses Mean
1 The International Building Code 8 0 3 11 1.55
2 ASCE 7‐05 (Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and Other Structures)
6 1 4 11 1.82
3 ASCE 31‐03 (Seismic Evaluation of Existing Buildings) 4 2 3 9 1.89
4 ASCE 41‐06 3 1 5 9 2.22
5 NFPA 3 0 4 7 2.14
Statistic The International Building Code
ASCE 7‐05 (Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and Other Structures)
ASCE 31‐03 (Seismic Evaluation of Existing
Buildings)
ASCE 41‐06
NFPA
Mean 1.55 1.82 1.89 2.22 2.14
Variance 0.87 0.96 0.86 0.94 1.14
Standard Deviation
0.93 0.98 0.93 0.97 1.07
Total Responses
11 11 9 9 7
Identification of Methods to Achieve Successful Implementation of Nonstructural and Equipment Seismic Restraints
Appendix G, Civil Engineers Page G‐7
14. What are the penalties for noncompliance with The International Building Code?
Text Response
Loss of License
Building permit will not be issued
no building permit, possible loss of engineering license, fines,
Don't know.
LOSS OF LIFE
Depends upon local jurisdiction
Not Specified
15. Are you aware of any specific suggested nonstructural seismic restraint guidelines produced by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA)?
# Answer Response %
1 Yes 4 36%
2 No 7 64%
Total 11 100%
16. Please list any other resources you are aware of for guidance in nonstructural seismic restraint design:
Text Response
SMACMA, NFPA, AWWA
AWWA, Minimizing Earthquake Damage, A Guide For Water Utilities. (No Date)
EOTA
Identification of Methods to Achieve Successful Implementation of Nonstructural and Equipment Seismic Restraints
Appendix G, Civil Engineers Page G‐8
17. How important do you think earthquake safety standards for nonstructural items; are to other professionals in the building community?
# Answer Response %
1 1‐ not at all important 0 0%
2 2 0 0%
3 3 2 22%
4 4‐ moderately important 1 11%
5 5 2 22%
6 6 3 33%
7 7‐ extremely important 1 11%
Total 9 100%
Identification of Methods to Achieve Successful Implementation of Nonstructural and Equipment Seismic Restraints
Appendix G, Civil Engineers Page G‐9
18. How important are nonstructural safety standards to you?
# Answer Response %
1 1‐ not at all important 0 0%
2 2 0 0%
3 3 1 11%
4 4‐ moderately important 0 0%
5 5 2 22%
6 6 4 44%
7 7‐ extremely important 2 22%
Total 9 100%
19. In your geographic area, how important is the installation of earthquake anchorage and the bracing of nonstructural items such as walls, ceilings, lighting fixtures, firewater piping, and ductwork?
# Answer Response %
1 1‐ not at all important 0 0%
2 2 0 0%
3 3 1 11%
4 4‐ moderately important 0 0%
5 5 1 11%
6 6 4 44%
7 7‐ extremely important 3 33%
Total 9 100%
Identification of Methods to Achieve Successful Implementation of Nonstructural and Equipment Seismic Restraints
Appendix G, Civil Engineers Page G‐10
20. In your geographic area, how important is the installation of seismic anchorage and the bracing of building components such as electrical transformers and electrical switchgear, and mechanical equipment, such as boilers.
# Answer Response %
1 1‐ not at all important 0 0%
2 2 0 0%
3 3 1 11%
4 4‐ moderately important 0 0%
5 5 2 22%
6 6 5 56%
7 7‐ extremely important 1 11%
Total 9 100%
21. In your geographic area, how important is the seismic anchorage and bracing design of facade elements, such as exterior panels and windows?
# Answer Response %
1 1‐ not at all important 0 0%
2 2 0 0%
3 3 1 13%
4 4‐ moderately important 0 0%
5 5 4 50%
6 6 1 13%
7 7‐ extremely important 2 25%
Total 8 100%
Identification of Methods to Achieve Successful Implementation of Nonstructural and Equipment Seismic Restraints
Appendix G, Civil Engineers Page G‐11
22. In your geographic area, how important is the seismic anchorage and bracing design of process equipment in an industrial facility or utility?
# Answer Response %
1 1‐ not at all important 0 0%
2 2 0 0%
3 3 0 0%
4 4‐ moderately important 1 11%
5 5 0 0%
6 6 6 67%
7 7‐ extremely important 2 22%
Total 9 100%
23. If a major earthquake were to occur in your area and if nonstructural or equipment items (such as those defined earlier) were NOT anchored or braced in a building, to what extent do you believe injuries or death would occur?
# Answer Response %
1 Injuries or death definitely would not happen
0 0%
2 Injuries or death probably would not happen
0 0%
3 Injuries or death may or may not happen 1 11%
4 Injuries or death probably would happen 6 67%
5 Injuries or death definitely would happen 2 22%
Total 9 100%
Identification of Methods to Achieve Successful Implementation of Nonstructural and Equipment Seismic Restraints
Appendix G, Civil Engineers Page G‐12
24. If a major earthquake were to occur in your area and if equipment or nonstructural restraints were absent in a structure, to what extent do you believe that major damage would occur to the structure?
# Answer Response %
1 Major damage definitely would not happen
0 0%
2 Major damage probably would not happen
0 0%
3 Major damage may or may not happen 3 33%
4 Major damage probably would happen 5 56%
5 Major damage definitely would happen 1 11%
Total 9 100%
25. If a major earthquake were to occur in your area, to what extent do you believe that damage to nonstructural or equipment items could result in severe enough damage to cause major facility downtime?
# Answer Response %
1 Major facility downtime definitely would not happen
0 0%
2 Major facility downtime probably would not happen
0 0%
3 Major facility downtime may or may not happen
0 0%
4 Major facility downtime probably would happen
7 78%
5 Major facility downtime definitely would happen
2 22%
Total 9 100%
Identification of Methods to Achieve Successful Implementation of Nonstructural and Equipment Seismic Restraints
Appendix G, Civil Engineers Page G‐13
26. Which do you believe is more likely in your area (choose one):
# Answer Response %
1 Failure of, or significant damage to, nonstructural elements and systems during a moderate earthquake
8 89%
2 Structural collapse during a moderate earthquake
1 11%
Total 9 100%
27. In your opinion, when a structure is to be built, who is responsible to be familiar with nonstructural seismic safety design standards? (Check all that apply)
# Answer Response %
1 Architect 7 78%
2 Structural engineer 8 89%
3 Civil engineer 6 67%
4 Mechanical engineer 8 89%
5 Electrical engineer 5 56%
6 General contractor 5 56%
7 Building subcontractor 4 44%
8 Equipment manufacturer 3 33%
9 Equipment supplier 1 11%
10 Supplier or installer of specialty seismic bracing devices
5 56%
11 Building inspector 8 89%
12 Building plan reviewer 6 67%
13 Construction project manager 7 78%
14 Overall design project manager 6 67%
15 Other 1 11%
Identification of Methods to Achieve Successful Implementation of Nonstructural and Equipment Seismic Restraints
Appendix G, Civil Engineers Page G‐14
28. In your opinion, when a structure is to be built, who has the primary responsibility to be familiar with nonstructural seismic safety design standards? (Select one)
# Answer Response %
x1 Architect 0 0%
x2 Structural engineer 6 75%
x3 Civil engineer 1 13%
x4 Mechanical engineer 0 0%
x5 Electrical engineer 0 0%
x6 General contractor 0 0%
x7 Building subcontractor 0 0%
x8 Equipment manufacturer 0 0%
x9 Equipment supplier 0 0%
x10 Supplier or installer of specialty seismic bracing devices
0 0%
x11 Building inspector 0 0%
x12 Building plan reviewer 0 0%
x13 Construction project manager 1 13%
x14 Overall design project manager 0 0%
x15 Other 0 0%
Total 8 100%
Identification of Methods to Achieve Successful Implementation of Nonstructural and Equipment Seismic Restraints
Appendix G, Civil Engineers Page G‐15
29. In your opinion, who have you found to be the most informed about nonstructural seismic safety design standards. (Select one)
# Answer Response %
1 Architect 0 0%
2 Structural engineer 5 63%
3 Civil engineer 2 25%
4 Mechanical engineer 0 0%
5 Electrical engineer 0 0%
6 General contractor 0 0%
7 Building subcontractor 0 0%
8 Equipment manufacturer 0 0%
9 Equipment supplier 0 0%
10 Supplier or installer of specialty seismic bracing devices
1 13%
11 Building inspector 0 0%
12 Building plan reviewer 0 0%
13 Construction project manager 0 0%
14 Overall design project manager 0 0%
15 Other (please specify) 0 0%
Total 8 100%
Identification of Methods to Achieve Successful Implementation of Nonstructural and Equipment Seismic Restraints
Appendix G, Civil Engineers Page G‐16
30. In your opinion, who have you found to be the least informed about nonstructural seismic safety design standards. (Select one)
# Answer Response %
1 Architect 3 38%
2 Structural engineer 0 0%
3 Civil engineer 0 0%
4 Mechanical engineer 1 13%
5 Electrical engineer 0 0%
6 General contractor 2 25%
7 Building subcontractor 1 13%
8 Equipment manufacturer 0 0%
9 Equipment supplier 1 13%
10 Supplier or installer of specialty seismic bracing devices
0 0%
11 Building inspector 0 0%
12 Building plan reviewer 0 0%
13 Construction project manager 0 0%
14 Overall design project manager 0 0%
15 Other (please specify) 0 0%
Total 8 100%
Identification of Methods to Achieve Successful Implementation of Nonstructural and Equipment Seismic Restraints
Appendix G, Civil Engineers Page G‐17
31. Who do you believe is responsible for compliance with nonstructural seismic safety design standards? Please rank order your responses [with a '1' representing the party most responsible for compliance.]
# Answer 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Responses
1 Architect 1 1 1 0 2 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7
2 Structural engineer 5 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7
3 Civil engineer 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3
4 Mechanical engineer 0 2 1 1 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7
5 Electrical engineer 0 1 1 1 0 1 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 6
6 General contractor 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 3
7 Building subcontractor 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 3
8 Equipment manufacturer
1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 3
9 Equipment supplier 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 2
10 Supplier or installer of specialty seismic bracing devices
0 0 1 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4
11 Building inspector 0 2 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 6
12 Building plan reviewer 0 0 1 0 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 6
13 Construction project manager
0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 4
14 Overall design project manager
0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 4
15 Other (please specify) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Total 8 9 6 6 6 6 6 4 3 3 3 2 2 1 0
Identification of Methods to Achieve Successful Implementation of Nonstructural and Equipment Seismic Restraints
Appendix G, Civil Engineers Page G‐18
32. In your opinion, who has ultimate responsibility to see that buildings are compliant with nonstructural seismic safety design standards? (Select one)
# Answer Response %
1 Architect 0 0%
2 Structural engineer 3 38%
3 Civil engineer 1 13%
4 Mechanical engineer 0 0%
5 Electrical engineer 0 0%
6 General contractor 1 13%
7 Building subcontractor 0 0%
8 Equipment manufacturer 0 0%
9 Equipment supplier 0 0%
10 Supplier or installer of specialty seismic bracing devices
0 0%
11 Building inspector 1 13%
12 Building plan reviewer 0 0%
13 Construction project manager 1 13%
14 Overall design project manager 1 13%
15 Other (please specify) 0 0%
Total 8 100%
Identification of Methods to Achieve Successful Implementation of Nonstructural and Equipment Seismic Restraints
Appendix G, Civil Engineers Page G‐19
33. Given that there are standards governing the correct installation of nonstructural and equipment seismic restraints in buildings, how well do you believe these standards are complied with in your building community?
# Answer Response %
1 1‐ never complied with 0 0%
2 2‐ sometimes complied with 4 50%
3 3‐ usually complied with 4 50%
4 4‐ always complied with 0 0%
Total 8 100%
Identification of Methods to Achieve Successful Implementation of Nonstructural and Equipment Seismic Restraints
Appendix G, Civil Engineers Page G‐20
35. In cases where you believe nonstructural items in buildings and facilities have been designed and constructed with good seismic anchorage and bracing measures, why has this occurred? [Check all that apply]
# Answer Response %
1 The owner required and checked for compliance with these measures
5 63%
2 The government or other oversight group checked for compliance with these measures
3 38%
3 It was important to me in my professional capacity
4 50%
4 It was required for financing or insurance to be approved
1 13%
5 It was required before the contractor, subcontractor, and/or equipment suppliers could be paid
1 13%
6 It was required by design professionals 7 88%
7 Equipment suppliers provided anchorage kits for this purpose
0 0%
8 The specialty contractors knew what to do and performed this work correctly
2 25%
9 It was a bid item, and therefore had to be done for the contractor to be paid
0 0%
10 It is a strictly enforced provision 3 38%
11 Building inspectors enforce these measures
2 25%
12 It is done as a matter of standard practice in my profession
0 0%
13 The owner hired a specialist in this area to design and/or construct these measures
2 25%
14 It occurred for the work my firm was involved in, but not for others in the same facility
0 0%
15 Other (please specify) 0 0%
Identification of Methods to Achieve Successful Implementation of Nonstructural and Equipment Seismic Restraints
Appendix G, Civil Engineers Page G‐21
36. Please rank FIVE (5) from the list below in order of causal forces by dragging and dropping them to their respective order:
# Answer Responses
x1 The owner required and checked for compliance with these measures 4
x2 The government or other oversight group checked for compliance with these measures
3
x3 It was important to me in my professional capacity 4
x4 It was required for financing or insurance to be approved 1
x5 It was required before the contractor, subcontractor, and/or equipment suppliers could be paid
1
x6 It was required by design professionals 7
x7 Equipment suppliers provided anchorage kits for this purpose 0
x8 The specialty contractors knew what to do and performed this work correctly 2
x9 It was a bid item, and therefore had to be done for the contractor to be paid 0
x10 It is a strictly enforced provision 3
x11 Building inspectors enforce these measures 2
x12 It is done as a matter of standard practice in my profession 0
x13 The owner hired a specialist in this area to design and/or construct these measures 2
x14 It occurred for the work my firm was involved in, but not for others in the same facility 0
x15 Other (please specify) 0
x16 Other (please specify) 0
x17 Other (please specify) 0
Total
Identification of Methods to Achieve Successful Implementation of Nonstructural and Equipment Seismic Restraints
Appendix G, Civil Engineers Page G‐22
37. To the extent that you see noncompliance with nonstructural and equipment seismic restraint standards in your building community, why do you think the noncompliance occurs? (Check all that apply)
# Answer Response %
1 I have never seen compliance 0 0%
2 The likelihood of a damaging earthquake in this area is too low to justify complying with the standards.
2 25%
3 It's not against the law to fail to comply with the standards; compliance will happen when it's the law.
1 13%
4 It is too time consuming to comply with these standards.
0 0%
5 It is too expensive to comply with the standards.
2 25%
6 There is little regulatory enforcement of compliance with the standards.
5 63%
7 The standards are poorly designed. 0 0%
8 The standards are too difficult to understand.
2 25%
9 There is little incentive to comply with these standards.
3 38%
10 There is a lack of compensation for oversight compliance.
0 0%
11 No one is really interested in making sure the standards are complied with.
1 13%
12 No one is adequately trained to make sure the standards are complied with.
2 25%
13
There is a communication breakdown between everyone involved in constructing the building that contributes to noncompliance.
1 13%
14 There are liability concerns that prevent compliance.
0 0%
15 No one knows who is ultimately responsible for compliance.
4 50%
16 Everyone passes the buck to someone 2 25%
Identification of Methods to Achieve Successful Implementation of Nonstructural and Equipment Seismic Restraints
Appendix G, Civil Engineers Page G‐23
else, so compliance doesn't occur.
17 Compliance just falls through the cracks. 2 25%
18 Penalties for noncompliance aren't severe enough to make compliance a high priority.
2 25%
19 Everyone just assumes someone else will make sure that compliance occurs.
1 13%
20 No one is qualified to certify compliance. 1 13%
21 The likely consequences of an earthquake in my area are to minimal to justify the cost and effort of compliance.
2 25%
22 Other (please specify) 1 13%
23 Other (please specify) 1 13%
24 Other (please specify) 0 0%
Identification of Methods to Achieve Successful Implementation of Nonstructural and Equipment Seismic Restraints
Appendix G, Civil Engineers Page G‐24
38. Please rank order the reasons why you think noncompliance occurs. Include your own reasons in the ordering if you add any to the list. If there are more than five reasons in the list, rank only the top five. 1 = Most important.
# Answer Responses
x1 I have never seen compliance 0
x2 The likelihood of a damaging earthquake in this area is too low to justify complying with the standards.
2
x3 It's not against the law to fail to comply with the standards; compliance will happen when it's the law.
0
x4 It is too time consuming to comply with these standards. 0
x5 It is too expensive to comply with the standards. 2
x6 There is little regulatory enforcement of compliance with the standards. 3
x7 The standards are poorly designed. 0
x8 The standards are too difficult to understand. 1
x9 There is little incentive to comply with these standards. 2
x10 There is a lack of compensation for oversight compliance. 0
x11 No one is really interested in making sure the standards are complied with. 1
x12 No one is adequately trained to make sure the standards are complied with. 2
x13 There is a communication breakdown between everyone involved in constructing the building that contributes to noncompliance.
1
x14 There are liability concerns that prevent compliance. 0
x15 No one knows who is ultimately responsible for compliance. 3
x16 Everyone passes the buck to someone else, so compliance doesn't occur. 2
x17 Compliance just falls through the cracks. 2
x18 Penalties for noncompliance aren't severe enough to make compliance a high priority. 1
x19 Everyone just assumes someone else will make sure that compliance occurs. 1
x20 No one is qualified to certify compliance. 0
x21 The likely consequences of an earthquake in my area are to minimal to justify the cost and effort of compliance.
2
x22 Other (please specify) 1
x23 Other (please specify) 0
Identification of Methods to Achieve Successful Implementation of Nonstructural and Equipment Seismic Restraints
Appendix G, Civil Engineers Page G‐25
39. Are you personally aware of buildings having been constructed in your area that were not compliant with nonstructural and equipment seismic safety design standards?
# Answer Response %
1 Yes 3 38%
2 No 5 63%
Total 8 100%
40. How prevalent is noncompliance?
# Answer Response %
1 Very common 3 43%
2 Occasional 4 57%
3 Rare 0 0%
Total 7 100%
Identification of Methods to Achieve Successful Implementation of Nonstructural and Equipment Seismic Restraints
Appendix G, Civil Engineers Page G‐26
41. In cases where nonstructural items are not adequately anchored and braced for earthquake loads, what are the primary factors that could lead to good design and construction practices? (Please check as many as applicable
# Answer Response %
1
New technical provisions in the building codes, i.e. improvement in the technical requirements, could lead to good design and construction practices.
5 63%
2 Stricter building codes enforcement could lead to good design and construction practices.
5 63%
3 Better education of design professionals could lead to good design and construction practices.
7 88%
4 Better education of owners could lead to good design and construction practices.
6 75%
5 Better education of contractors and equipment suppliers could lead to good design and construction practices.
6 75%
6 Design fees specifically allocated to this work could lead to good design and construction practices.
2 25%
7
More federal grants for mitigation of nonstructural hazards during remodels could lead to good design and construction practices.
1 13%
8 Better internal quality control by design professionals could lead to good design and construction practices.
3 38%
9
The creation of a new system, with specific professional licensing requirements for this type of work, could lead to good design and construction practices.
1 13%
10 Fairer enforcement of standards across all projects could lead to good design and construction practices.
1 13%
Identification of Methods to Achieve Successful Implementation of Nonstructural and Equipment Seismic Restraints
Appendix G, Civil Engineers Page G‐27
11 Financial incentives, such as reduced insurance costs, could lead to good design and construction practices.
3 38%
12
Better public education of hazards posed by nonstructural items in an earthquake could lead to good design and construction practices.
4 50%
13
Punishment of design professionals and contractors or others associated with non‐compliant buildings or facilities could lead to good design and construction practices.
2 25%
14 Other (please specify) 0 0%
Identification of Methods to Achieve Successful Implementation of Nonstructural and Equipment Seismic Restraints
Appendix G, Civil Engineers Page G‐28
42. Please rank these in order of their causal force by dragging them into their respective order:
# Answer Responses
x1 New technical provisions in the building codes, i.e. improvement in the technical requirements, could lead to good design and construction practices.
2
x2 Stricter building codes enforcement could lead to good design and construction practices.
2
x3 Better education of design professionals could lead to good design and construction practices.
4
x4 Better education of owners could lead to good design and construction practices. 3
x5 Better education of contractors and equipment suppliers could lead to good design and construction practices.
4
x6 Design fees specifically allocated to this work could lead to good design and construction practices.
2
x7 More federal grants for mitigation of nonstructural hazards during remodels could lead to good design and construction practices.
1
x8 Better internal quality control by design professionals could lead to good design and construction practices.
1
x9 The creation of a new system, with specific professional licensing requirements for this type of work, could lead to good design and construction practices.
1
x10 Fairer enforcement of standards across all projects could lead to good design and construction practices.
1
x11 Financial incentives, such as reduced insurance costs, could lead to good design and construction practices.
3
x12 Better public education of hazards posed by nonstructural items in an earthquake could lead to good design and construction practices.
2
x13 Punishment of design professionals and contractors or others associated with non‐compliant buildings or facilities could lead to good design and construction practices.
2
x14 Other (please specify) 0
Total
Identification of Methods to Achieve Successful Implementation of Nonstructural and Equipment Seismic Restraints
Appendix G, Civil Engineers Page G‐29
The creation of a new system, with
specific professional licensing
requirements for this type of work, could lead to
good design and construction practices.
Fairer enforcement of
standards across all
projects could lead to good design and construction practices.
Financial incentives, such as reduced insurance costs, could lead to good design and construction practices.
Better public education of
hazards posed by nonstructural items in an earthquake could lead to
good design and construction practices.
Punishment of design
professionals and contractors or
others associated with non‐compliant buildings or
facilities could lead to good design and construction practices.
Other (please specify)
8.00 5.00 6.33 4.00 4.50 0.00
0.00 0.00 2.33 0.00 4.50 0.00
0.00 0.00 1.53 0.00 2.12 0.00
1 1 3 2 2
43. Rank the effectiveness of education to increase familiarity with the standards.
# Answer Response %
1 High probability of increasing compliance 5 63%
2 Medium probability of increasing compliance
3 38%
3 Low probability of increasing compliance 0 0%
Total 8 100%
Identification of Methods to Achieve Successful Implementation of Nonstructural and Equipment Seismic Restraints
Appendix G, Civil Engineers Page G‐30
44. Who needs to be educated so that compliance will increase?
# Answer Response %
1 Architect 0 0%
2 Structural engineer 1 20%
3 Civil engineer 0 0%
4 Mechanical engineer 0 0%
5 Electrical engineer 0 0%
6 General contractor 0 0%
7 Building subcontractor 0 0%
8 Equipment manufacturer 0 0%
9 Equipment supplier 1 20%
10 Supplier or installer of specialty seismic bracing devices
0 0%
11 Building inspector 1 20%
12 Building plan reviewer 1 20%
13 Construction project manager 0 0%
14 Overall design project manager 0 0%
15 Owner 0 0%
16 Other (please specify) 1 20%
Total 5 100%
45. Rank the effectiveness of enhanced enforcement of the current standards.
# Answer Response %
1 High probability of increasing compliance 4 57%
2 Medium probability of increasing compliance
3 43%
3 Low probability of increasing compliance 0 0%
Total 7 100%
Identification of Methods to Achieve Successful Implementation of Nonstructural and Equipment Seismic Restraints
Appendix G, Civil Engineers Page G‐31
46. Rank the effectiveness of reducing financial constraints associated with compliance.
# Answer Response %
1 High probability of increasing compliance 0 0%
2 Medium probability of increasing compliance
6 75%
3 Low probability of increasing compliance 2 25%
Total 8 100%
47. Rank the effectiveness of creating incentives for compliance. # Answer Response %
1 High probability of increasing compliance 1 13%
2 Medium probability of increasing compliance
7 88%
3 Low probability of increasing compliance 0 0%
Total 8 100%
48. Rank the effectiveness of assessing penalties for non‐compliance. # Answer Response %
1 High probability of increasing compliance 3 38%
2 Medium probability of increasing compliance
4 50%
3 Low probability of increasing compliance 1 13%
Total 8 100%
49. You stated that assessing penalties for non‐compliance would have a positive effect. Is the existing plan approval process adaptable?
# Answer Response %
1 Yes 3 100%
2 No 0 0%
Identification of Methods to Achieve Successful Implementation of Nonstructural and Equipment Seismic Restraints
Appendix G, Civil Engineers Page G‐32
51. Rank the effectiveness of clearly defining who is responsible for compliance in the standards and codes.
# Answer Response %
1 High probability of increasing compliance 4 50%
2 Medium probability of increasing compliance
4 50%
3 Low probability of increasing compliance 0 0%
Total 8 100%
52. Rank the effectiveness of creating a certification for individuals responsible for ensuring compliance.
# Answer Response %
1 High probability of increasing compliance 3 38%
2 Medium probability of increasing compliance
3 38%
3 Low probability of increasing compliance 2 25%
Total 8 100%
Identification of Methods to Achieve Successful Implementation of Nonstructural and Equipment Seismic Restraints
Appendix G, Civil Engineers Page G‐33
53. Who needs to be certified so that compliance will ensured?
# Answer Response %
1 Architect 1 33%
2 Structural engineer 3 100%
3 Civil engineer 2 67%
4 Mechanical engineer 2 67%
5 Electrical engineer 2 67%
6 General contractor 1 33%
7 Building subcontractor 1 33%
8 Equipment manufacturer 1 33%
9 Equipment supplier 2 67%
10 Supplier or installer of specialty seismic bracing devices
1 33%
11 Building inspector 2 67%
12 Building plan reviewer 2 67%
13 Construction project manager 1 33%
14 Overall design project manager 1 33%
15 Other (please specify) 0 0%
54. Rank the effectiveness of creating earthquake insurance incentives to stimulate compliance.
# Answer Response %
1 High probability of increasing compliance 3 38%
2 Medium probability of increasing compliance
5 63%
3 Low probability of increasing compliance 0 0%
Total 8 100%
Identification of Methods to Achieve Successful Implementation of Nonstructural and Equipment Seismic Restraints
Appendix G, Civil Engineers Page G‐34
55. You stated that by creating earthquake insurance incentives to stimulate compliance. How might such earthquake insurance incentives be structured?
Text Response
discounts
Importance factor of the facility.
lower premiums; rebates
56. Rank the effectiveness of requiring budgeting of nonstructural seismic work in the bid process.
# Answer Response %
1 High probability of increasing compliance 0 0%
2 Medium probability of increasing compliance
7 100%
3 Low probability of increasing compliance 0 0%
57. Rank the effectiveness of providing detailed design standards to assist in the process of complying.
# Answer Response %
1 High probability of increasing compliance 2 25%
2 Medium probability of increasing compliance
6 75%
3 Low probability of increasing compliance 0 0%
Total 8 100%
59. Rank the effectiveness of increasing the availability of qualified specialty contractors to ensure compliance.
# Answer Response %
1 High probability of increasing compliance 1 13%
2 Medium probability of increasing compliance
7 88%
3 Low probability of increasing compliance 0 0%
Total 8 100%
Identification of Methods to Achieve Successful Implementation of Nonstructural and Equipment Seismic Restraints
Appendix G, Civil Engineers Page G‐35
60. Rank the effectiveness of requiring equipment suppliers to design and install seismic anchorage and bracing systems.
# Answer Response %
1 High probability of increasing compliance 3 38%
2 Medium probability of increasing compliance
5 63%
3 Low probability of increasing compliance 0 0%
Total 8 100%
61. Rank the importance of first hand knowledge of earthquake effects in achieving compliance.
# Answer Response %
1 High probability of increasing compliance 3 38%
2 Medium probability of increasing compliance
4 50%
3 Low probability of increasing compliance 1 13%
Total 8 100%
62. Rank the importance of regulatory issues in achieving compliance.
# Answer Response %
1 High probability of increasing compliance 3 38%
2 Medium probability of increasing compliance
5 63%
3 Low probability of increasing compliance 0 0%
Total 8 100%
Identification of Methods to Achieve Successful Implementation of Nonstructural and Equipment Seismic Restraints
Appendix G, Civil Engineers Page G‐36
63. Rank the importance of design process issues in achieving compliance.
# Answer Response %
1 High probability of increasing compliance 2 25%
2 Medium probability of increasing compliance
6 75%
3 Low probability of increasing compliance 0 0%
Total 8 100%
64. What is single most important action that you believe would result in widespread use of seismic bracing of nonstructural items, in a manner which conforms to codes and design guidelines?
Text Response
No recommendation
Don't issue permits until compliance occurs
major earthquake with significant nonstructural damage and then owner and public outcry
Education by seminars and workshops.
education of designers, owners, inspectors, insurance agents, and the general public
training
Identification of Methods to Achieve Successful Implementation of Nonstructural and Equipment Seismic Restraints
Appendix H Facility Manager Responses Page H‐1
Appendix H: Facility Manager’s Electronic Survey Responses
1.0 Introduction
This appendix provides a summary of data gathered from all respondent groups, using the on line Qualtrics survey tool. Questions are listed in the order that they appeared to respondents.
2. Please identify your primary profession by selecting ONE of the buttons below
# Answer Response %
1 Facility/Building owner 0 0%
2 Facility manager 9 100%
4 Architect 0 0%
5 Structural engineer 0 0%
6 Civil engineer 0 0%
7 Mechanical or Electrical engineer 0 0%
9 General Contractor 0 0%
10 Building Subcontractor 0 0%
11 Equipment manufacturer (please specify the type of equipment you manufacture, e.g., ductwork bracing)
0 0%
13 Supplier or installer of specialty seismic bracing devices
0 0%
14 Building inspector 0 0%
15 Building plan reviewer 0 0%
17 University professor (please specify field of expertise)
0 0%
18 Other (SEE NOTES) 0 0%
Total 9 100%
Identification of Methods to Achieve Successful Implementation of Nonstructural and Equipment Seismic Restraints
Appendix H Facility Manager Responses Page H‐2
3. What is the primary state in which you do most of your business? # Answer %
1 California 0%
2 Utah 29%
3 Washington 29%
4 Other (please name) 43%
Total 100%
4. What is the highest level of education you have achieved? # Answer Response %
1 Less than high school 0 0%
2 High school graduate or equivalent 0 0%
3 Trade/Technical school graduate (please specify your area of study)
2 29%
4 Some college 3 43%
5 College graduate (please specify your major field of study)
0 0%
6 Post‐graduate degree (master's, doctoral, other) (please specify your degree and area of study)
2 29%
Total 7 100%
5. Please identify the types of structures or facilities with which you have experience. Check one or more categories as is applicable. # Answer Response %
1 Federal Government buildings 0 0%
2 Local or State Government buildings 2 29%
3 Emergency Services, Fire, Police 0 0%
4 Healthcare 3 43%
5 Utilities 0 0%
6 K‐12 Schools 0 0%
7 Universities 1 14%
8 Office and Commercial 2 29%
9 Industrial 2 29%
10 Residential 1 14%
11 High Occupancy, convention centers 0 0%
Identification of Methods to Achieve Successful Implementation of Nonstructural and Equipment Seismic Restraints
Appendix H Facility Manager Responses Page H‐3
7. Have you ever been in an earthquake?
# Answer %
1 Yes 71%
2 No 29%
Total 100%
8. Are you familiar with any codes, design guidelines, or standards that govern the installation of nonstructural and equipment seismic restraints in buildings?
# Answer %
1 Yes 71%
2 No 29%
Total 100%
9. Please list the codes that you are familiar with:
#1 #2 #3 #4 #5
UBC ICBO AIA Minimum Standards for Healthcare Occ. NFPA 99
nfc AIA guilines IBC
IBC (Building) NEC (Electrical) UMC (Mechanical) UPC (Plumbing)
ASCE Ohio Building Code
10. What are the penalties for noncompliance with The International Building Code?
Text Response
Loss of Use, denial of Licensure in Healthcare Facilities
No building occupancy
Fines, no CO, Red tag, locked out, building shut down, etc
Don't Know
Identification of Methods to Achieve Successful Implementation of Nonstructural and Equipment Seismic Restraints
Appendix H Facility Manager Responses Page H‐4
11. Are you aware of any specific suggested nonstructural seismic restraint guidelines produced by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA)?
# Answer %
1 Yes 14%
2 No 86%
Total 100%
13. How important do you think earthquake safety standards are to other professionals in the building community?
# Answer %
1 1‐ not at all important 0%
2 2 0%
3 3 0%
4 4‐ moderately important 50%
5 5 33%
6 6 17%
7 7‐ extremely important 0%
Total 100%
14. How important are nonstructural safety standards to you?
# Answer %
1 1‐ not at all important 0%
2 2 0%
3 3 0%
4 4‐ moderately important 33%
5 5 17%
6 6 50%
7 7‐ extremely important 0%
Identification of Methods to Achieve Successful Implementation of Nonstructural and Equipment Seismic Restraints
Appendix H Facility Manager Responses Page H‐5
15. If a major earthquake were to occur in your area, to what extent do you believe that damage to nonstructural or equipment items could result in severe enough damage to cause major facility downtime?
# Answer %
1 Major facility downtime definitely would not happen 0%
2 Major facility downtime probably would not happen 0%
3 Major facility downtime may or may not happen 17%
4 Major facility downtime probably would happen 67%
5 Major facility downtime definitely would happen 17%
Total 100%
16. Which do you believe is more likely in your area (choose one):
# Answer Response %
1 Failure of, or significant damage to, nonstructural elements and systems during a moderate earthquake
6 100%
2 Structural collapse during a moderate earthquake
0 0%
Total 6 100%
17. In your opinion, when a structure is to be built, who is responsible to be familiar with nonstructural seismic safety design standards? (Check all that apply)
# Answer Response %
1 Architect 5 83%
2 Structural engineer 5 83%
3 Civil engineer 3 50%
4 Mechanical engineer 6 100%
5 Electrical engineer 6 100%
6 General contractor 5 83%
7 Building subcontractor 5 83%
8 Equipment manufacturer 2 33%
Identification of Methods to Achieve Successful Implementation of Nonstructural and Equipment Seismic Restraints
Appendix H Facility Manager Responses Page H‐6
9 Equipment supplier 1 17%
10 Supplier or installer of specialty seismic bracing devices
5 83%
11 Building inspector 6 100%
12 Building plan reviewer 6 100%
13 Construction project manager 5 83%
14 Overall design project manager 5 83%
15 Other (please specify) 1 17%
18. In your opinion, who has ultimate responsibility to see that buildings are compliant with nonstructural seismic safety deign standards? (Select one)
# Answer %
1 Architect 50%
2 Structural engineer 0%
3 Civil engineer 0%
4 Mechanical engineer 0%
5 Electrical engineer 0%
6 General contractor 0%
7 Building subcontractor 0%
8 Equipment manufacturer 0%
9 Equipment supplier 0%
10 Supplier or installer of specialty seismic bracing devices 0%
11 Building inspector 17%
12 Building plan reviewer 0%
13 Construction project manager 0%
14 Overall design project manager 17%
15 Other (please specify) 17%
Total 100%
Identification of Methods to Achieve Successful Implementation of Nonstructural and Equipment Seismic Restraints
Appendix H Facility Manager Responses Page H‐7
19. Given that there are standards governing the correct installation of nonstructural and equipment seismic restraints in buildings, how well do you believe these standards are complied with in your building community?
# Answer %
1 1‐ never complied with 17%
2 2‐ sometimes complied with 17%
3 3‐ usually complied with 67%
4 4‐ always complied with 0%
Total 100%
Identification of Methods to Achieve Successful Implementation of Nonstructural and Equipment Seismic Restraints
Appendix H Facility Manager Responses Page H‐8
21. In cases where you believe nonstructural items in buildings and facilities have been designed and constructed with good seismic anchorage and bracing measures, why has this occurred? [Check all that apply]
# Answer %
1 The owner required and checked for compliance with these measures
80%
2 The government or other oversight group checked for compliance with these measures
80%
3 It was important to me in my professional capacity 40%
4 It was required for financing or insurance to be approved 60%
5 It was required before the contractor, subcontractor, and/or equipment suppliers could be paid
20%
6 It was required by design professionals 60%
7 Equipment suppliers provided anchorage kits for this purpose
20%
8 The specialty contractors knew what to do and performed this work correctly
20%
9 It was a bid item, and therefore had to be done for the contractor to be paid
20%
10 It is a strictly enforced provision 60%
11 Building inspectors enforce these measures 60%
12 It is done as a matter of standard practice in my profession 60%
13 The owner hired a specialist in this area to design and/or construct these measures
20%
14 It occurred for the work my firm was involved in, but not for others in the same facility
0%
15 Other (please specify) 20%
16 Other (please specify) 0%
17 Other (please specify) 0%
Identification of Methods to Achieve Successful Implementation of Nonstructural and Equipment Seismic Restraints
Appendix H Facility Manager Responses Page H‐9
22. To the extent that you see noncompliance with nonstructural and equipment seismic restraint standards in your building community, why do you think the noncompliance occurs? (Check all that apply)
# Answer %
1 I have never seen compliance 0%
2 The likelihood of a damaging earthquake in this area is too low to justify complying with the standards.
60%
3 It's not against the law to fail to comply with the standards; compliance will happen when it's the law.
20%
4 It is too time consuming to comply with these standards. 0%
5 It is too expensive to comply with the standards. 0%
6 There is little regulatory enforcement of compliance with the standards.
20%
7 The standards are poorly designed. 0%
8 The standards are too difficult to understand. 0%
9 There is little incentive to comply with these standards. 20%
10 There is a lack of compensation for oversight compliance. 40%
11 No one is really interested in making sure the standards are complied with.
0%
12 No one is adequately trained to make sure the standards are complied with.
20%
13 There is a communication breakdown between everyone involved in constructing the building that contributes to noncompliance.
0%
14 There are liability concerns that prevent compliance. 0%
15 No one knows who is ultimately responsible for compliance.
40%
16 Everyone passes the buck to someone else, so compliance doesn't occur.
20%
17 Compliance just falls through the cracks. 20%
18 Penalties for noncompliance aren't severe enough to make compliance a high priority.
0%
19 Everyone just assumes someone else will make sure that compliance occurs.
20%
20 No one is qualified to certify compliance. 20%
21 The likely consequences of an earthquake in my area are to minimal to justify the cost and effort of compliance.
20%
22 Other (please specify) 0%
23 Other (please specify) 0%
Identification of Methods to Achieve Successful Implementation of Nonstructural and Equipment Seismic Restraints
Appendix H Facility Manager Responses Page H‐10
23. Are you personally aware of buildings having been constructed in your area that were not compliant with nonstructural and equipment seismic safety design standards?
# Answer %
1 Yes 20%
2 No 80%
Total 100%
24. How prevalent is noncompliance?
# Answer %
1 Very common 20%
2 Occasional 20%
3 Rare 60%
Total 100%
25. In cases where nonstructural items are not adequately anchored and braced for earthquake loads, what are the primary factors that could lead to good design and construction practices?
# Answer %
1 New technical provisions in the building codes, i.e. improvement in the technical requirements, could lead to good design and construction practices.
80%
2 Stricter building codes enforcement could lead to good design and construction practices.
60%
3 Better education of design professionals could lead to good design and construction practices.
80%
4 Better education of owners could lead to good design and construction practices.
80%
5 Better education of contractors and equipment suppliers could lead to good design and construction practices.
60%
6 Design fees specifically allocated to this work could lead to good design and construction practices.
0%
7 More federal grants for mitigation of nonstructural hazards during remodels could lead to good design and construction practices.
20%
Identification of Methods to Achieve Successful Implementation of Nonstructural and Equipment Seismic Restraints
Appendix H Facility Manager Responses Page H‐11
8 Better internal quality control by design professionals could lead to good design and construction practices.
20%
9 The creation of a new system, with specific professional licensing requirements for this type of work, could lead to good design and construction practices.
40%
10 Fairer enforcement of standards across all projects could lead to good design and construction practices.
20%
11 Financial incentives, such as reduced insurance costs, could lead to good design and construction practices.
40%
12 Better public education of hazards posed by nonstructural items in an earthquake could lead to good design and construction practices.
80%
13 Punishment of design professionals and contractors or others associated with non‐compliant buildings or facilities could lead to good design and construction practices.
20%
14 Other (please specify) 0%
26. Rank the effectiveness of education to increase familiarity with the standards.
# Answer %
1 High probability of increasing compliance 60%
2 Medium probability of increasing compliance 40%
3 Low probability of increasing compliance 0%
Total 100%
27. Rank the effectiveness of enhancing enforcement of the current standards.
# Answer %
1 High probability of increasing compliance 80%
2 Medium probability of increasing compliance 20%
3 Low probability of increasing compliance 0%
Total 100%
Identification of Methods to Achieve Successful Implementation of Nonstructural and Equipment Seismic Restraints
Appendix H Facility Manager Responses Page H‐12
28. Rank the effectiveness of reducing financial constraints associated with compliance.
# Answer %
1 High probability of increasing compliance 40%
2 Medium probability of increasing compliance 60%
3 Low probability of increasing compliance 0%
Total 100%
29. Rank the effectiveness of creating incentives for compliance.
# Answer %
1 High probability of increasing compliance 60%
2 Medium probability of increasing compliance 40%
3 Low probability of increasing compliance 0%
Total 100%
30. Rank the effectiveness of assessing penalties for non‐compliance.
# Answer %
1 High probability of increasing compliance 60%
2 Medium probability of increasing compliance 40%
3 Low probability of increasing compliance 0%
Total 100%
31. Rank the effectiveness of clearly defining who is responsible for compliance in the standards and codes.
# Answer %
1 High probability of increasing compliance 80%
2 Medium probability of increasing compliance 20%
3 Low probability of increasing compliance 0%
Total 100%
Identification of Methods to Achieve Successful Implementation of Nonstructural and Equipment Seismic Restraints
Appendix H Facility Manager Responses Page H‐13
32. Rank the effectiveness of creating a certification for individuals responsible for ensuring compliance.
# Answer %
1 High probability of increasing compliance 60%
2 Medium probability of increasing compliance 40%
3 Low probability of increasing compliance 0%
Total 100%
33. Rank the effectiveness of creating earthquake insurance incentives to stimulate compliance.
# Answer %
1 High probability of increasing compliance 60%
2 Medium probability of increasing compliance 40%
3 Low probability of increasing compliance 0%
Total 100%
34. Rank the effectiveness of requiring budgeting of nonstructural seismic work in the bid process.
# Answer %
1 High probability of increasing compliance 60%
2 Medium probability of increasing compliance 40%
3 Low probability of increasing compliance 0%
Total 100%
35. Rank the effectiveness of providing detailed design standards to assist in the process of complying.
# Answer %
1 High probability of increasing compliance 60%
2 Medium probability of increasing compliance 40%
3 Low probability of increasing compliance 0%
Total 100%
Identification of Methods to Achieve Successful Implementation of Nonstructural and Equipment Seismic Restraints
Appendix H Facility Manager Responses Page H‐14
36. Rank the effectiveness of increasing the availability of qualified specialty contractors to ensure compliance.
# Answer %
1 High probability of increasing compliance 20%
2 Medium probability of increasing compliance 80%
3 Low probability of increasing compliance 0%
Total 100%
37. Rank the effectiveness of requiring equipment suppliers to design and install seismic anchorage and bracing systems
# Answer %
1 High probability of increasing compliance 40%
2 Medium probability of increasing compliance 40%
3 Low probability of increasing compliance 20%
Total 100%
38. Rank the importance of first hand knowledge of earthquake effects in achieving compliance.
# Answer %
1 High probability of increasing compliance 40%
2 Medium probability of increasing compliance 60%
3 Low probability of increasing compliance 0%
Total 100%
39. Rank the importance of regulatory issues in achieving compliance.
# Answer %
1 High probability of increasing compliance 40%
2 Medium probability of increasing compliance 60%
3 Low probability of increasing compliance 0%
Total 100%
Identification of Methods to Achieve Successful Implementation of Nonstructural and Equipment Seismic Restraints
Appendix H Facility Manager Responses Page H‐15
40. Rank the importance of design process issues in achieving compliance.
# Answer %
1 High probability of increasing compliance 40%
2 Medium probability of increasing compliance 60%
3 Low probability of increasing compliance 0%
Total 100%
Appendix I Catalog of Verbal Interview Results by Discipline
Appendix I, Verbal Interview Results Page I‐1
Appendix I
Catalog of Verbal Responses Organized by Discipline
Appendix I Catalog of Verbal Interview Results by Discipline
Appendix I, Verbal Interview Results Page I‐2
J.1 Purpose of Telephone Interviews This section contains a summary of verbal responses given during either telephone conversations with individuals from the various target groups, or from face to face conversations, after the Qualtrics survey was initiated. This information is organized by target group and by research topic. In this phase of the research, two basic questions were asked: 1) How well do you think the process of nonstructural seismic bracing is currently being accomplished? 2) To the extent that the process could be improved, what recommendations can you offer? Contrary to the electronic survey portion of the study, where a fairly rigid format of set responses was available for the respondent to choose from, no set response format or group of set response choices was provided. Respondent to these verbal inquires were asked if they had completed, or knew of, the on line survey. If they planned to or had responded to the electronic survey, no records of their verbal responses were kept in this appendix. This was done to avoid double counting responses. The information from these interviews is used in conjunction with the electronic survey results to formulate the conclusions and recommendations in Section 6 of the project report. 3) Unlike the on line electronic survey, the purpose of this portion of the research was to find the first reaction to this issue when it was stated. This provides an alternative insight to if code compliance exists, to what extent it is a problem, and how it could be solved in very simple terms.
Appendix I Catalog of Verbal Interview Results by Discipline
I, Verbal Interview Results Page I‐3 Appendix
J.2 Analysis of Telephone Interview Comments No attempt is made to do statistical analysis of telephone interview results. However, some useful observations are as follows: 1) It was possible to get responses from all target groups by calling a company or government group and finding the appropriate person to speak to. However, any attempt to ask more than just a few questions sometimes met with resistance, unless the respondent already knew and trusted the caller. 2) There was a tendency of owners to trust their design professionals, even if they were unsure about exactly what was required for nonstructural bracing. 3) Sophisticated owners, such as schools, hospital and public utility representatives stated that they were very aware of the need to properly anchor and brace nonstructural items, regardless of the state they were in. 4) After the current research results for the entire study is done, a telephone survey of a broader group may be appropriate to test the effectiveness of proposed solution to increase the successful implement so nonstructural seismic bracing. This approach could result in statistically valid results if a narrow set of proposed solutions were tested. 5) There was sensitivity on the part of many telephone survey respondents to be blunt about whether or not the code provisions (and therefore if the law) was being complied with. There would very likely be less sensitivity to responding to a future survey concerned with mitigative solutions such as: would a continuing education course be useful, or should a specific specification section for nonstructural seismic bracing always be required, etc. 6) Structural engineer and architect responses were similar to the electronic survey, for the most part. Some architects in the telephone interviews were more candid in their belief that nonstructural seismic requirements were either overly conservative or unnecessarily complex.
Appendix I Catalog of Verbal Interview Results by Discipline
Appendix I, Verbal Interview Results Page I‐4
7) Contractors expressed willingness to correctly construct nonstructural seismic measures, but often sated that general design details were unclear and very difficult to quantify and therefore accurately bid. 8) Several contractors suggested creation of or use of a separate specifications section devoted to nonstructural seismic requirements. Bids for nonstructural seismic bracing could then correspond to these specification sections. 9) Plan reviewer comments in the telephone interviews disclosed that some plan reviewers are actually under pressure to not carefully review nonstructural seismic provisions. 10) Getting MEP engineers to fill out the survey proved to be very difficult. Mechanical engineers often prefer to rely on design services provided by companies that also provide other equipment, such as vibration isolators, rather than do the design work themselves. Mechanical engineers reported that this aspect of their work was rarely reviewed if the facility was not a critical facility.
Appendix I Catalog of Verbal Interview Results by Discipline
Appendix I, Verbal Interview Results Page I‐5
Table J-1: Responses to Verbal Inquires Target Group State Q1: How Effective are the Current
Nonstructural Seismic Design Provisions and Procedures
Q2: How Could the Process Design and Construction Process be Improved?
Architects 1) UT Variable Standard specifications are used, but with more detail provided
recently. The more detailed specifications, which require a PE signature, are more effective.
2) CA Very effective Strictly enforced by OSHPD, use this level of enforcement elsewhere.
3) CA Very effective Licensed SE’s do complete work, require SE’s to do work 4) UT Assumed to be done well, required for
drawings to be stamped by CE or SE Clearer design standards would be helpful.
5) WA Uncertain, variable Develop uniform enforcement procedures and clearer design guides
6) UT Effective Standard details on drawings are sufficient, not a high priority. 7) CA Uncertain An “overrated” concern in comparison to other design issues.
Should make design provisions simpler and less conservative. 8) UT Variable. This is a function of owner interest more than anything else. For
critical facilities, designs and enforcement are more complete. 9) CA Highly effective Design and inspection procedures are strict and clear for Hospitals
and schools. 10) UT Variable More education on what is really required. This would be a very
good continuing education topic for architects.
Appendix I Catalog of Verbal Interview Results by Discipline
Appendix I, Verbal Interview Results Page I‐6
Table J-1: Responses to Verbal Inquires Target Group State Q1: How Effective are the Current
Nonstructural Seismic Design Provisions and Procedures
Q2: How Could the Process Design and Construction Process be Improved?
Code Enforcement Professionals
1) UT Variable Must be “careful” to enforce too rigidly due to pressure to get approvals done. Overzealous reviews could lead to losing job!
2) UT Not effective at all Not as important as the structure review, must be made a specific priority. Specific and consistent review methodology is needed.
3) UT Variable If the CE or SE stamps it, the liability is on them, no action needed
4) UT Variable Not strictly enforced or even understood. It is unclear who is responsible.
5) CA Very Effective It is “nearly impossible” to not construct required bracing measures, given enforcement environment.
6) CA Very Effective Strictly enforced for critical facilities. 7) CA Mostly Effective Less enforcement and sometimes unclear adaptation of “typical
details” that really are not representative of actual site conditions.
Appendix I Catalog of Verbal Interview Results by Discipline
Appendix I, Verb 7 al Interview Results Page I‐
Table J-1: Responses to Verbal Inquires Target Group State Q1: How Effective are the Current
Nonstructural Seismic Design Provisions and Procedures
Q2: How Could the Process Design and Construction Process be Improved?
Construction Industry Project Managers; or Estimators;
1) UT Not effective and seldom done Require specific specification section and bid item 2) UT Varies widely by owner If owner requires the work and is strict, I hire a SE to do it. 3) CA Varies If a clear bid item, I’ll do it, otherwise it’s a change order 4) CA Highly effective Required by law and strictly enforced, no changes needed. 5) CA Highly effective The law if clear enforcing is strict 6) UT Not an important issue to this firm No change needed 7) CA Not clear It was assumed that vendors and MEP subs are installing braces
required by drawings. If not, then the building inspector should bring it to our attention. Inspection issue problems are rare.
8) WA Very Effective For the type of work done, various utilities, the work was required by the design professionals
9) UT Unknown Not clear who, from an inspection point of view, what is required. The design engineer is ultimately responsible.
10) CA Very effective Many of the projects managed were seismic retrofit projects
Appendix I Catalog of Verbal Interview Results by Discipline
Appendix I, Verbal Interview Results Page I‐8
Table J-1: Responses to Verbal Inquires Target Group State Q1: How Effective are the Current
Nonstructural Seismic Design Provisions and Procedures
Q2: How Could the Process Design and Construction Process be Improved?
Developers
1) UT Unknown Assuming Architect is making sure this is done 2) UT Unknown In this economy this is a very low priority 3) CA Very Effective We do the work as a part of our risk management planning (This
person also represents a company that owns some of their properties)
4) UT Unknown Would expect Architect to be on top of this, just like any design issue
5) UT Effective for standard items Aware of ceiling bracing, generally that equipment should be tied down. Whoever the PM is responsible, if this work is required.
Appendix I Catalog of Verbal Interview Results by Discipline
Appendix I, Verbal Interview Results Page I‐9
Table J-1: Responses to Verbal Inquires Target Group State Q1: How Effective are the Current
Nonstructural Seismic Design Provisions and Procedures
Q2: How Could the Process Design and Construction Process be Improved?
Equipment Suppliers
1) UT Unknown, I supply the electrical equipment only; it’s the owners or engineers responsibility to anchor.
Not use any improvement is needed or not.
2) UT Not important Equipment should be unanchored to allow it to move in an earthquake!
3) UT Unknown Our equipment has anchor bolts in the base of skids and in frames. The engineer needs to design the anchorage
4) UT Effective for our equipment We provided anchor bolt and tie down kits with our equipment. It is designed for “Zone 4”
5) CA Unknown We supply the equipment, the Architect or Engineers are responsible for any seismic design.
6) CA Very effective We work with specialty vibration isolation firms and engineers who know what the requirements are.
7) CA Unknown, but suspect effective Our equipment is not made in CA, if anchorage is needed, the Engineering project manager is responsible
8) CA Very effective We use SMACNA 9) UT Very effective We do not do calculations, but use NFPA details. 10) UT Very effective For a retrofit project and the design engineer knew what he was
doing.
Appendix I Catalog of Verbal Interview Results by Discipline
Appendix I, Verbal Interview Results Page I‐10
Table J-1: Responses to Verbal Inquires Target Group
State Q1: How Effective are the Current Nonstructural Seismic Design Provisions and Procedures
Q2: How Could the Process Design and Construction Process be Improved?
Facility Managers
1) CA Effective For our facilities, which are part of several different types of facilities, office, retail, medical office and high end residential, we are strict about it. Our risk manger is also.
2) Several States
Effective This is something we require and try to keep track of as a part of our overall risk management processes.
3) Several States
Effective We have purchase and specifically retrofitted buildings and this work has been required as a result of due diligence studies.
4) UT Should be effective Expect design professionals to include if it is required. 5) UT Not important An earthquake is not likely to occur, other day to day issues like
energy efficiency are more important. 6) UT Effective We specifically look at this for our buildings. While we don’t
carefully inspect the work, that should be done as a part of construction administration by the architect.
7) UT Unknown This is the responsibility of those who stamp the drawings. 8) UT Mostly effective Funding of retrofit is an unresolved problem.
Appendix I Catalog of Verbal Interview Results by Discipline
Appendix I, Verbal Inter Page I‐11 view Results
Table J-1: Responses to Verbal Inquires Target Group
State Q1: How Effective are the Current Nonstructural Seismic Design Provisions and Procedures
Q2: How Could the Process Design and Construction Process be Improved?
Facility Owners
1) UT In our facilities, very effective We only hire competent engineers who understand ASCE 7-05 and ASCE 41-06
2) UT I am sure this is done, if it is required. No improvement, we need to “be careful” not to let what “happened to California hospitals” happen here.
3) UT Effective It is the A/E’s job and they stamp the drawings, no change needed.
4) UT Effective It is the design firm’s job, and I assume they do what is needed. 5) CA Effective We strictly enforce this for business interruption avoidance
reasons 6) CA Effective We have done expensive retrofit programs to cover this. 7) CA Very effective For our facilities (a water Utility), this is done well. 8) CA Very Effective, although we need money for
more retrofit Several retrofit programs have been done. Others are still needed
9) CA Effective This has been a part of RMP or RMPP processes 10) CA Effective This type of work should be a par to the design Architects job.
However we do not have any out of the ordinal inspection programs to focus on just this.
11) UT Effective, more needed on existing buildings More FEMA funding or other funding is needed. 12) Several Effective Enforced in CA, this is a design engineers responsibility 13) WA Effective Effective, critical DOD facility 14) CA Our facilities span may different uses.
Offices, utilities etc. Effective for new design, more retrofit of existing needed..
Retrofit needs more attention and funding.
Appendix I Catalog of Verbal Interview Results by Discipline
Appendix I, Verbal Interview Results Page I‐12
Table J-1: Responses to Verbal Inquires Target Group State Q1: How Effective are the Current
Nonstructural Seismic Design Provisions and Procedures
Q2: How Could the Process Design and Construction Process be Improved?
Grant Reviewers at the State and Federal Level.
1) UT Grant provisions are strict and thoroughly reviewed in this regard
Follow a process of peer review, as FEMA uses.
2) Responsible for several western states
Specific programs are available to increase the implementation of nonstructural seismic bracing programs
Better dissemination of useful “how to guides” that are already in place is needed.
Appendix I Catalog of Verbal Interview Results by Discipline
Appendix I, Verbal Interview Results Page I‐13
Table J-1: Responses to Verbal Inquires Target Group State Q1: How Effective are the Current
Nonstructural Seismic Design Provisions and Procedures
Q2: How Could the Process Design and Construction Process be Improved?
Mechanical & Electrical Engineers
1) UT Effective We hire a specialty firm (two examples of firms provided) 2) UT Effective We hire a specialty firm. Specialty firms are based in California. 3) UT Varies Needs to be in SE’s specification sections if this is important. SE
knows allowable building roof loads. 4) UT Varies Don’t know who to go to for this type of design, not really part of
Electrical design process. 5) UT Effective SMACNA details are adequate 6) CA Effective for Hospitals, for other facilities
design is not always done thoroughly nor is work reviewed carefully by plan checkers or inspectors.
Making nonstructural bracing a specific specification section and a specific item required in bids would be very beneficial and would likely successful improve the state of the practice for nonessential buildings. Vibration isolated equipment is often not snubbed.
7) CA The codes are not clear and overly complex. Many associates are unsure of when bracing is required and when it is not.
Better education of mechanical and electrical engineers is needed to help them understand what is required. Requires coordination with SE for allowable building loads.
8) CA Probably OK, but not really sure. Better education needed. Understands MEP design, but not what is required for earthquake bracing.
9) CA For hospital, effective, for nonessential facilities, little attention is given to this.
Personally aware of many instances of unsnubbed vibration isolators, completely or very poorly braced pipe.
10) UT Unsure, noticed more requirements in specs lately
Appears like enforcement is starting to be stricter.
Appendix I Catalog of Verbal Interview Results by Discipline
Appendix I, Verbal Interview Results Page I‐14
Table J-1: Responses to Verbal Inquires Target Group State Q1: How Effective are the Current
Nonstructural Seismic Design Provisions and Procedures
Q2: How Could the Process Design and Construction Process be Improved?
Structural Engineers
1) CA Very effective Follow OSHPD type enforcement 2) CA Very effective It’s my job to make sure this work is done correctly. 3) UT Varies This is not something we get paid to do, it’s either the ME job or
the equipment supplier’s job. 4) UT Varies For some hospital owners it is done correctly, needs to be
enforced. 5) UT Varies This is the MEP engineers responsibility 6) UT Varies highly, depending on owner If the owner is concerned and specific designs are done, the work
is thorough and inspected. This is very owner driven. 7) CA Usually effective If done by an SE, verses a PE, the work will be done effectively.
Require an SE only to do this work 8) CA Usually effective This is the clear domain and responsibility of the SE.
Appendix I Catalog of Verbal Interview Results by Discipline
Appendix I, Verbal Interview Results Page I‐15
Table J-1: Responses to Verbal Inquires Target Group State Q1: How Effective are the Current
Nonstructural Seismic Design Provisions and Procedures
Q2: How Could the Process Design and Construction Process be Improved?
Specialty Contractors
1) CA Effective if our products and design guides are used
Better project management
2) CA Effective We are hired for jobs where we do this work. Not sure of other jobs.
3) CA Effective if we are used We have a complete line of vibration isolation and MEP bracing items that are preapproval and used extensively
4) CA, other Western States
Effective This is our business, but I am definitely aware of cases where the work is not done or done poorly on Spec buildings.
5) CA Effective, especially if we do the design and installation.
The codes are clear, and we do this work as part of out overall business.
6) UT Variable Effective if the owner cares
Appendix J Page J‐1
Identification of Methods to Achieve Successful Implementation of Nonstructural and Equipment Seismic Restraints
Appendix J- References ATC (2008), Reducing Risks of Nonstructural Earthquake Damage State of the Art and Practice
Report, ATC-69 Report, Applied Technology Council, Redwood City, California ASCE (2006-1), Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and Other Structures, ASCE/SEI 7-05,
American Society of Civil Engineers, Reston, Virginia ASCE (2006-2), Seismic Rehabilitation of Existing Buildings, ASCE/SEI 41-06, American
Society of Civil Engineers, Reston, Virginia ASCE (2003), Seismic Evaluation of Existing Buildings, ASCE/SEI 31-03, American Society of
Civil Engineers, Reston, Virginia Anderson, N. E. (2000), Seismic adjustments: The influence of inconvenience and efficacy
perceptions, state of residence, and demographic factors. Unpublished master’s thesis: Brigham Young University.
Bickman, L. (1972) Social Influence and diffusion of responsibility in an emergency, Journal of
Experimental Social Psychology, 8, pp 438-445. California Office of Emergency Services (OES), (2003) Nonstructural Earthquake Hazards in
California Schools, California Office of Emergency Services, Sacramento, California California Department of Education (1998) Commercial Property Owner’s Guide to Earthquake
Safety, Sacramento, California California Building Standards Administrative Code (CAC), Title 24, (2007), Sacramento,
California Donaldson, S. I., Graham, J. W., & Hansen, W. B. (1994) Testing the generalizability of
intervening mechanism theories: Understanding the effects of adolescent drug use prevention interventions, Journal of Behavioral Medicine, 17, 195-216.
Donaldson, S. I., Graham, J. W., Piccinin, A. M., & Hansen, W. B. (1995). Resistance-skills
training and onset of alcohol use; Evidence for beneficial and potentially harmful effects in public schools and in private Catholic schools. Health Psychology, 14, 291-300.
FEMA , PDMC2008 (www.fema.gov)
Appendix J Page J‐2
FEMA 313, (1998) Promoting the Adoption and Enforcement of Seismic Building Codes: A Guide for State Earthquake and Mitigation Managers, Federal Emergency Management Agency, Washington, D.C.
FEMA 412, (2005) Installation Seismic Restraints for Mechanical Equipment, , Federal
Emergency Management Agency, Washington, D.C. FEMA 413, (2004-1) Installing Seismic Restraints for Electrical Equipment, Federal Emergency
Management Agency, Washington, D.C. FEMA 414, (2004-2) Installing Seismic Restraints for Duct and Pipe, , Federal Emergency
Management Agency, Washington, D.C. FEMA 461, (2007), Interim Testing Protocols for Determine the Seismic Performance
Characteristics of Structural and Nonstructural Components, Federal Emergency Management Agency, Washington, D.C.
SMACNA, (2000), Seismic Restraint Manual: Guidelines for Mechanical Systems, Sheet Metal
and Air Conditioning Contractor’s National Association, Chantilly, Virginia Kunreuther, H., Ginsber, R., Miller, L., Sagi, P., Slovic, P., Borkan, B., & Katz, N. (1978).
Disaster insurance protection: Public policy lessons. New York: Wiley Press. Goethals, G.R., Messick, S.M. & Allision, S.T. (1991), The Uniqueness Bias: Studies of
Constructive Social Comparison, In J. Suls & T.A. Wills (Eds.), Social Comparison: Contemporary Theory and Research, Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum
Heller, K., Alexander, D. B., Gatz, J., Knight, B. G., & Rose, T. (2005). Social and personal
factors as predictors of earthquake preparation: The role of support provision, network discussion, negative affect, age, and education. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 35, 399-422.
Hess, Richard, (2008), “Lateral Bracing for Equipment and Fixtures, Thoughts for the Editorial
Board” , Structure Magazine, April 2008 ICC, (2006), International Building Code, International Code Council, Washington D.C. Lindell, M.K., Prater, C.S. & Perry, R.W. (2006). Fundamentals of emergency
management. Emmitsburg, MD: Federal Emergency Management Agency Emergency Management Institute. Available at www.training.fema.gov/EMIWeb/edu/fem.asp.
Latané, B., & Darley, J. M. (1970). The unresponsive bystander: Why doesn’t he help? New
York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.
Appendix J Page J‐3
Masek, J, P. Reitherman, Robert K (1990). “Current Problems Implementation of Nonstructural Earthquake Hazard Reduction Efforts”,
Proceedings of [the] Seminar and Workshop on Seismic Design and Performance of Equipment and Nonstructural Elements in Buildings and Industrial Structures; Irvine, California, October 3-5, 1990. Applied Technology Council, Redwood City, CA, 1992, pages 53-59. Masek, J., Reaveley, L., Wong, I.,( 2003) Metropolitan Water District of Salt Lake and Sandy
Seismic Policy Document, Salt Lake City, Utah
Masek, J., Ott, J. (2005), “Consideration of Earthquake Hazard Mitigation as a Component of Water/Wastewater Facility Modification or Expansion”, Proceedings of the Water Environmental Federation Technology Conference, pp. 404-417
Moses, F. (1998). Probabilistic-based structural specifications. Risk Analysis, 18, 445-454. NFPA, (2007), Standard of the Installation of Sprinkler Systems, NFPA 13, National Fire
Protection Association, Quincy Massachusetts Pallak, M. S., Cook, D. A., & Sullivan, J. J. (1980). Commitment and energy conservation. In L.
Bickman (Ed.), Applied Social Psychology Annual, 1, 235-253. Palm, R. (1995). Earthquake insurance: A longitudinal study of California homeowners.
Boulder, CO: Westview Press. Petak, William J., Alesch Daniel, (2008) “Structural and non-structural earthquake design: The
challenge of integrating specialty areas in designing complex critical facilities”, unpublished draft, January 31, 2008
Prater, C.S. & Lindell, M.K. (2000). Politics of hazard mitigation. Natural
Hazards Review, 1, 73-82. Qualtrics: Qualtrics Statistical Analysis Software (2008 version), www.qualtrics.com. Scheel, Norman, (2007) SEAOC Field Act White Paper, “A seismic safety program for
California Community Colleges Structural Engineers Association of California (SEAOC), (2006), “2006 IBC Structural/Seismic
Design Manual”, Structural Engineers Association of California, Sacramento, California Singh,M.P., Suarez, L.E., Matheau, E.E., Maldonado, G.O., (1993) “Simplified procedures for
seismic design of nonstructural components and assessment of current code provisions”, NCEER Publication-93-0013
Sullivan, R., Mustart, D. A., & Galehouse, J. S. (1977). Living in earthquake country.
California, Geology, 30, 3-8.