34

Developing an Earthquake Mitigation Program

34.1 34.2 34.3 34.4 34.5 34.6 Introduction Overview of an Earthquake Mitigation Program Phase 0: Pre-Program Activities Phase 1: Assessing the Problem Phase 2: Developing the Program Phase 3: Implementing the Program
Retaining Seismic Retrot Design Professionals Funding the Program Coordinating with Other Parts of the Organization Perform Seismic Retrot Dealing with Residual Risk

Charles Scawthorn
Consulting Engineer Berkeley, CA

34.7 Maintaining the Program Dening Terms References Further Reading

When schemes are laid in advance, it is surprising how often the circumstances t in with them. Sir William Osler (18491919)

34.1 Introduction
Previous chapters of this volume have discussed the effects of earthquake and the potential resulting damage. This chapter provides guidance on how to go about developing and implementing an earthquake risk reduction program to reduce that potential damage that is, this chapter discusses developing an earthquake mitigation program. An earthquake mitigation program has ve basic aspects: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Pre-program activities Assessing the risk Developing the program Implementing the program Maintaining the program

The next section rst provides an overview of these aspects, and is then followed by sections providing a detailed discussion of each aspect.

2003 by CRC Press LLC

34-2

Earthquake Engineering Handbook

34.2 Overview of an Earthquake Mitigation Program

Earthquakes are a problem and, in the most general sense, solving a problem has three basic phases: 1. Phase 1: Understanding the problem 2. Phase 2: Finding a solution 3. Phase 3: Putting the solution into effect Solving the earthquake problem that is, an earthquake mitigation program has these three basic phases, plus two more phases. These two additional phases are required because earthquake mitigation typically involves activities in large organizations over a prolonged period (years, if not decades), during which personnel changes are not uncommon. Therefore, the two additional phases are (1) a phase zero, which consists of actually getting a large organization to embark on an earthquake mitigation program, and (2) phase 4: putting in place the organizational mechanisms such that the earthquake mitigation program is maintained over the required period. Regarding the latter phase, maintaining the earthquake mitigation program over the required period is not actually sufcient; once the formal earthquake mitigation program has been completed, or during its implementation, conditions are likely to change such that the earthquake mitigation program should likewise change. Lastly, part of any comprehensive earthquake mitigation program is an emergency plan. As discussed in Chapter 33, maintaining an emergency plan is integral to that plan. Therefore, in the sense that the emergency plan is part of the earthquake implementation program, and that the program needs to be alert to changing conditions in the organization that may increase earthquake risk, maintenance of the earthquake mitigation program is an ongoing task which never ends. That is, once the formal earthquake mitigation program has been completed, earthquake mitigation should be an ongoing part of the organizations normal risk management activities. Therefore, developing an earthquake mitigation program involves the following ve phases: 1. Phase 0, pre-program activities, involving increasing awareness of the potential earthquake problem, and gaining authorization for an initial assessment of the problem. 2. Phase 1, assessing the risk, consisting of an initial review of life, property, and business or functional exposures, and the threat that earthquakes may pose to them, in order to determine the current seismic risk. That is, are earthquakes indeed a problem (i.e., does a problem exist?) and, if so, what is the magnitude and nature of that problem? 3. Phase 2, developing the program, which consists of determining the organizations acceptable risk, the options that exist for reducing the current risk to an acceptable level, the costs of doing that, and how it should be accomplished. 4. Phase 3, implementing the program that is, actually taking the actions that reduce the risk. 5. Phase 4, maintaining the program so that the risk does not become unacceptable. These phases are shown in Figure 34.1, and discussed in more detail in the next sections.

34.3 Phase 0: Pre-Program Activities

Pre-program activities may be very simple or very difcult, depending on geographic and organizational factors, such as the organizations mode of decision-making. The fundamental driver is geographic is there a potential for earthquakes in regions in which the organization operates? While earthquakes have the potential to occur almost anywhere, there are regions such as parts of California, Japan, and Mexico, in which they are clearly a problem. There are other regions in which the degree of earthquake risk is less clear in the eastern United States, for example, where earthquakes have occurred, but their frequency is relatively low. The region to be considered, by the way, is not only the region in which the organization may be located, but also regions related to the organization, such as where the organizations suppliers, or customers, are located. Chapters 1 and 4 of this volume should provide sufcient information, in a global sense, to obtain a broad understanding as to whether earthquakes are a problem for a
2003 by CRC Press LLC

Developing an Earthquake Mitigation Program

34-3

Pre-program

Factors - Seismic environment? - Organization / decision-making - Responsibility / liability

Assess the Risk

Stop

Acceptable?

Data - Seismic hazard - Exposure - life - property - business / function - revenue - data - market share - reputation / image - Vulnerability - Assessment

Develop the Program

Acceptable? N Y Implement the Program

Mitigation Options - Locational - Redundancy / backup - Move - Structural - Strengthen structures - Brace equipment / furnishings - Operational - Emergency Plan - Backup data - Transfer - Insurance - Contracts

Maintain the Program

FIGURE 34.1 Earthquake mitigation program.

specic region. More detailed information can then be obtained from references cited in those chapters, as well as from expert sources, such as the U.S. Geological Survey or various seismological observatories. If earthquakes appear to have some potential for occurrence, the next issue is obtaining the authorization for assessing the risk they may pose to the organization. Depending on the organization and its decision-making, several arguments may be needed to authorize the expenditure involved in a seismic risk assessment. These arguments typically fall into the following categories: Ethical this is often the rst argument to occur to a proponent of a seismic risk assessment. It typically takes the form of, it is the organizations responsibility to assess its earthquakes risk, to be sure it is protecting life and property. This argument may sometimes be sufcient, but often it is not, and it fails not because decision-makers are unethical, but rather because the argument is insubstantial in itself. That is, logically, for this argument to prevail, it is then true that it is the organizations responsibility to assess ALL risks, to be sure. Organizations cannot be risk-free, and decision-makers are painfully aware of the limited resources they have available to deal with quite real, signicant risks, whether those risks are hurricanes, worker safety, foreign exchange, competition, or others. Therefore, the argument needs to be accompanied by sufcient facts and initial analysis to substantiate that some ethical risk exists the proponent must do some homework.
2003 by CRC Press LLC

34-4

Earthquake Engineering Handbook

Good business also known as enlightened self-interest, this is often the most effective argument. A bit of homework, consisting of assembling some facts on (1) earthquake history of the region; (2) how other organizations may have been affected in past earthquakes (see Chapter 1, this volume) or even other disasters, such as hurricanes, oods, or res; and (3) the approximate exposure the organization has in the event of a structural collapse, loss of IT data, or other possible event, can go a very long way toward convincing a CEO that it is worth looking into the matter a bit further. Thus, the basis for a seismic risk assessment should be that it can be cost-effective, reduce potential losses greatly should an earthquake occur, and possibly reduce current insurance and other costs. Liability In the United States and many other countries today, an ignorance-of-risk defense is highly questionable, and this should be brought to the attention of decision-makers in a tactful manner. Decision-makers are responsible for protecting the welfare of their organizations and the public today, and are expected to understand the extent of this risk and to deal with it in a responsible manner. Questions such as, Are you prepared? are valid, and not inappropriate (Figure 34.2). After a disaster occurs, decision-makers are often held responsible for having made the wrong decision, especially if losses are seen as unacceptably high and all stakeholders were not involved in the decision process. Steps to understand the risk and share the information with the affected stakeholders can help to minimize post-event backlash, even if no action to mitigate is ultimately taken. Once disclosure is made, the stakeholders can either accept the risk or make it known that the risk must be addressed. In either event, the decision-maker who actively addresses earthquake risk and involves all stakeholders is better off than one who does not. Feasible Part of any argument for a seismic risk assessment should be that mitigation is feasible. Decision-makers may believe they need to greatly mitigate or even totally eliminate risks once they are discovered, relating this to issues of potential liability. Therefore, some decision-makers may prefer to adopt an ignorance is bliss approach to risk management, avoid having positive knowledge of a risk, and believe they have limited potential liability as a result. They believe that if an earthquake causes a building to collapse, it will be considered an act of God for which they will have no liability, particularly if no prior positive identication of the risk was available. Opposing this is that it is often possible to obtain incremental reduction in risk by performing limited mitigation as part of other programs. For example, if an existing building is going to be expanded, seismic upgrade of the building can probably be accomplished concurrently, at little additional cost. Similarly, if a major asbestos reduction program is going to be pursued, it may be possible at very little additional expenditure to perform concurrent seismic upgrades. Until the extent of seismic risk is understood and priorities set for mitigating this risk, the opportunities to embark on such incremental and cost-effective programs cannot be identied. Making the above arguments is not sufcient in themselves. A decision-maker will also want to know what the next steps are, if he or she wishes to proceed. We discuss this aspect next.

34.4 Phase 1: Assessing the Problem

Assessing seismic risk, or risk screening, is discussed in some detail in Chapter 2 of this volume. Basically, the process is shown in Figure 34.3, and consists of the following steps: Identifying the assets (people, property, functions) at risk Establishing (i.e., quantifying) the seismic hazard Developing performance objectives Performing rst a risk screening and then, for selected structures, a more detailed review

Identifying the assets at risk should be relatively straightforward most organizations facilities department should have values, personnel counts, etc. readily available. More difcult is determining
2003 by CRC Press LLC

Developing an Earthquake Mitigation Program

34-5

FIGURE 34.2 The cover and following page from Guide for Decision-Makers, prepared by the California Seismic Safety Commission, asks, Californias Next Earthquake are you prepared? and states, The public will want to know what you did to prepare. (Courtesy California Seismic Safety Commission)

the value of business or functional operations in a particular facility, and this may take a team effort involving operations, the nance department, and perhaps others. Often, this aspect results in some surprises, where a specic facility is found to be more critical than previously believed, due to its housing high-value goods or operations. A classic example often encountered by the author is an organizations data center, in which the equipment may be worth millions, and yet the building housing the data center has a book value only a fraction of the value of the equipment it houses. In this regard, the data itself may be priceless (e.g., it would cost tens of millions to replace, and would result in hundreds of millions in lost revenues if it could not be replaced), and therefore organizations have learned to back up the data offsite, and its value is less an issue. Developing performance objectives should normally be straightforward. A rst priority is no loss of life, which normally translates into no signicant collapse hazard, and dangerous processes should be able to safely shut down. Following in priority is normally preservation of value, which usually means limited property loss, no loss of essential equipment, and restoration of operations onsite, or at a backup site, within a period of time appropriate for the organization. These two aspects, identifying assets at risk and performance objectives, can be qualitatively assessed using a technique developed by Saaty [1980] termed the Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP). At the core of the AHP lies a method for converting subjective assessments of relative importance to a set of overall scores or weights. It is a simple yet useful tool, and one of the more widely applied multi-criteria analysis methods. The fundamental input to the AHP is the decision-makers answers to a series of questions of
2003 by CRC Press LLC

34-6

Earthquake Engineering Handbook

Identify Assets at Risk Establish Seismic Hazard

Develop Performance Objective

Occupants Buildings Other Structures Equipment Infrastructure Operations Profits Market Share Reputation

Buildings/Structures Risk Screening Yes Is it OK per FEMA154? No Detailed Review Yes Is it OK per FEMA310?

Equipment

Stop

Is it OK per MLEER 99-0008? No

Yes

Stop

Stop

Is it OK per Equipment Assessment?

Yes

Stop

No ALTERNATIVES

No

FIGURE 34.3 Earthquake risk assessment. (Courtesy California Seismic Safety Commission)

the general form, How important is criterion A relative to criterion B? These are termed pairwise comparisons. Questions of this type may be used to establish, within AHP, both weights for criteria and performance scores for options on the different criteria. In AHP, a very simple series of weights, such as: Much more = 5 About the same = 3 Much less = 1 are applied in a matrix, such that off-diagonal terms are the complement of one another (i.e., if row 1 column 2 is much more = 5, then row 2 column 1 is much less = 1). A simple example sufces. Suppose a company has the following facilities: headquarters, factory 1, factory 2, warehouse, and R&D laboratory, and wishes to determine the relative value of these facilities on the basis of the number of personnel, the value of building and contents, and the revenues that can be assigned to each facility. This is a multi-criteria analysis (the criteria are lives, property, and revenues) problem. The rst task is to determine the relative importance of the criteria. This is done as shown in Table 34.1. In this table, life is assigned a relative value much more than property, that is, a value of 5 (and, therefore, property is much less, 1). The relative weights of the three criteria are thus: Life = 10 Property = 4 Revenue = 4 The same technique is then applied to each of the facilities, for the facilitys respective values of life, property, and revenue. For example, as shown in Table 34.2, headquarters contains 100 personnel, while factory 1 contains 600, so that headquarters personnel are much less than factory 1 personnel, and
2003 by CRC Press LLC

Developing an Earthquake Mitigation Program

34-7

TABLE 34.1 AHP Results for Relative Weighting of Three Criteria

Criteria
PER TY LIFE PRO ENU REV E

1 LIFE 2 PROPERTY 3 REVENUE 4 5 6 7

5 1 1 3

5 3

SUM 10 4 4 0 0 0 0

much less than factory 2 personnel, much more than warehouse personnel, and about the same as the R&D laboratory personnel (in numbers of personnel). The sum of the headquarters row is thus 10, which is multiplied by the weight assigned to life (which was 10), so that the life-weighted product for headquarters is 100, for factory 1 is 180, and so on. This process is continued, and the nal result is shown in Table 34.3, where factory 2 is seen to be the most important facility (highest criteria-weighted sum) and so on, to the least important facility (headquarters1). Although it is somewhat arbitrary, the AHP is a useful tool for obtaining a relative ranking of facilities during the risk assessment process. Quantifying the hazard and developing seismic vulnerabilities are technical aspects that require the expertise of specialist earth scientists, structural engineers, and related experts. Most organizations utilize specialist consultants for this aspect who employ methods detailed in other chapters of this volume. The methods can be highly quantied, although at a screening level of analysis such methods may not be justied. It may simply sufce for facilities to be identied as being on good or poor soils, from a seismic perspective, and the structures as being similarly good or poor. In the latter case, a structural engineers review in identifying a continuous lateral-force-resisting system (LFRS) is a powerful discriminant. The result of an earthquake risk assessment task is a statement of the potential damage and losses that can result under current conditions. An example is shown in Figure 34.4, which shows the ndings for a hypothetical arena that was judged to be a high collapse hazard. The result of the screening is typically qualitative.

34.5 Phase 2: Developing the Program

Having performed a risk screening, facilities may be usefully grouped into several categories, such as: I. Probable high risk II. Possible high risk III. Probable low risk with the benet that the category III probable low risk facilities can be dropped from further consideration. The category I and category II facilities should then be subjected to a more detailed analysis, the product of which is not only a conrmation of their risk, but also the design of strengthening or
1

Authors note: a result that perhaps many employees already suspected.

2003 by CRC Press LLC

34-8

Earthquake Engineering Handbook

TABLE 34.2 AHP Relative Weights for Facilities, for Two Criteria

Name of Facility

Criteria
Ware hous e 1 Facto ry Facto ry 2

R&D

1 HQ 2 Factory 1 3 Factory 2 4 Warehouse 5 R&D 6 7

LIFE 100 600 900 25 50

1 5 5 1 3 3 1 1

1 3 1 1

5 5 5 3

3 5 5 3

SUM 10 100 18 180 18 180 6 60 8 80 0 0 0 0

y1

y2

Ware h

Facto r

Facto r

ouse

R&D

1 HQ 2 Factory 1 3 Factory 2 4 Warehouse 5 R&D 6 7

PROPERTY 100 600 2000 200 400 0 0

1 5 5 3 5 5 1 3

1 1 1 1

3 5 5 3

1 3 5 3

SUM 6 14 20 8 12 0 0

development of other mitigation measures, including the estimation of costs for the mitigation measures. Since this is not a nal design, the estimate of costs for structural strengthening or other mitigation measures is necessarily approximate, and is often termed a rough order of magnitude (ROM) estimate of costs. An example of a Phase 2 more detailed analysis is shown in Figure 34.5, which shows results of a structural analysis of a San Francisco Fire Department re station performed under the authors direction, including a schematic of the structural retrot scheme and a ROM cost estimate. All facilities falling into categories I and II should be the subject of similar analyses, for structural retrotting or alternative mitigation measures, as appropriate. Based on analyses such as indicated in Figure 34.5, all category I and category II facilities can be ranked according to their risk, mitigation costs, or other criteria. Table 34.4 shows an example of a hypothetical seismic risk assessment performed for a municipality. Strengthening cost based on a Phase 2 structural analysis is indicated for each facility. Additionally, the facilities are ranked by their benet-cost ratio (explained below), and the cumulative costs are indicated. The cumulative cost column indicates in what order a limited budget is best spent. In this example, if the organization (i.e., the city) has only $20 million, then it is best spent not on the Fine Art Museum, but on the North Police Station, Fire Station 2, and the Aquarium. This ranking is based on a benet-cost ratio, developed on the basis of a set of rules created for assessing the benets resulting from assured seismic functionality of each facility. Benet is the loss
2003 by CRC Press LLC

Cr tt 2

HQ

Cr tt 1

HQ

24 56 80 32 48 0 0

Developing an Earthquake Mitigation Program

34-9

TABLE 34.3 Criteria-Weighted Sums and Final Ranking for Each Facility

Cr tt 6

Cr tt 1

Cr tt 2

Name of Facility

PER TY

PRO

LIFE

REV

ENU

Cr tt 3

Cr tt 4

Cr tt 5

Cr tt 7

1 HQ 2 Factory 1 3 Factory 2 4 Warehouse 5 R&D 6 7

0 0

100 80 180 60 80 0 0

24 56 80 32 48 0 0

16 56 80 56 32 0 0

SUM 140 292 340 148 160 0 0

RANK 5 2 1 4 3

avoided by mitigation, derived by investing the cost of mitigation. If a large loss can be avoided via a small investment, the benet-cost ratio is high, and the investment is a good investment. If the required investment is large and only a small loss is avoided, then the mitigation action is not cost-benecial that is, it is not worth it. These rules can be as simple as assessing the cost of loss of functionality of the facility as the rent that would have to be paid to provide the same space, if that facility is lost. In the case of a re station, the benet should be this rent, plus perhaps some allowance for the re department not being able to function in the earthquake disaster that is, some allowance for losses due to res which the re department cannot respond to (and also, perhaps, some allowance for lost lives, although the latter are difcult to quantify). In the case of an art museum, some allowance might also be made for damage to the high-value contents the works of art. While some works of art may be priceless (even though they are bought and sold), a good proxy for the allowance would be the insurance premium for the contents. Thus, for each facility, the benet is determined on a consistent basis, and that benet divided by the cost of mitigation. The facilities are then ranked by this ratio, as shown in Table 34.4. Such a ranking is meant as a guide for decision-makers and should not be rigidly adhered to common sense may indicate that a particular facility, although ranked low, may actually be more important than indicated. The true meaning of this overriding of the ranking process is of course that the criteria employed in the process did not truly reect the actual, usually intuitive, criteria of the decision-maker. The nal decision as to what facilities to mitigate will depend on available budget or other resources and is, ultimately, the nal expression of the organizations acceptable risk. That is, the organization must balance what it wishes against what it can afford. The nal program, arrived at iteratively, expresses what it can afford, and the allocation of resources is the indication of the risks the organization is willing to incur. This is an important point, in that it is emphasized that the organizations acceptable risk cannot be decided a priori it is arrived at in a give-and-take, once the potential losses, and the costs of reducing those losses to various degrees, are known. Much time and effort are wasted in organizations at the beginning of a risk reduction program, trying to decide what is their level of acceptable risk. Leave this decision until the facts are known. Trying to determine acceptable risk early in the process can adversely affect, even prematurely terminate, an earthquake risk reduction program.

2003 by CRC Press LLC

34-10

Earthquake Engineering Handbook

FIGURE 34.4 Example result of a seismic risk assessment.

2003 by CRC Press LLC

Developing an Earthquake Mitigation Program

34-11

FIGURE 34.5 Example Phase 2 seismic risk analysis, with rough order of magnitude (ROM) cost estimate. (Courtesy EQE International)

2003 by CRC Press LLC

34-12

Earthquake Engineering Handbook

TABLE 34.4 Example Result, Seismic Risk Assessment

Facility North Police Station Fire Station 2 Aquarium Natural History Museum Thompson Fine Art Museum Fire Station 17 Justice Center Municipal Building Central library South Police Station Fire Department Headquarters Fire Station 29 Municipal Building Annex Fire Station 24 Downtown parking garage Jefferson Community Center Bayside library Lincoln Community Center Strengthening Cost $82,600 $115,500 $6,047,300 $11,663,300 $17,725,000 $887,100 $6,960,300 $10,497,400 $4,178,800 $1,154,500 $2,149,900 $2,590,400 $4,239,600 $1,204,900 $1,018,700 $5,729,800 $1,428,400 $6,276,200 Cumulative Cost $82,600 $198,100 $6,245,400 $17,908,700 $35,633,700 $36,520,800 $43,481,100 $53,978,500 $58,157,300 $59,311,800 $61,461,700 $64,052,100 $68,291,700 $69,496,600 $70,515,300 $76,245,100 $77,673,500 $83,949,700 Highest

Benefit/Cost

Lowest

34.6 Phase 3: Implementing the Program

Implementing the program consists of several key steps, including: Retaining seismic retrot design professionals Funding the program Performing nal design Coordinating design and construction with other parts of the organization

We discuss each of the aspects in turn.

34.6.1 Retaining Seismic Retrot Design Professionals

Retaining engineers experienced in seismic retrot is an important aspect of the retrot process. One of the most important attributes to look for is experience and satisfactory performance on previous projects. As outlined above, the seismic retrot professional will typically go about the assessment and mitigation in a three-phased approach, consisting of: Initial investigation and screening Detailed investigation and conceptual retrot design and costing of alternatives Final design and production of design documents and a bid package Step two is perhaps the most crucial from the decision-making viewpoint, since this is where the alternatives are evaluated for cost and effectiveness. In retaining an engineer, a clear and detailed scope of services should form the basis for the relationship. The scope of services must of course be specic to the particular situation, but may consist of the following tasks (services for all three phases are listed below). 34.6.1.1 Phase I: Initial Investigation and Screening 1. Review all available construction documents for the building, including structural and architectural drawings and specications for the original construction, as well as similar documents for any signicant modications or upgrades. The purpose of this review shall be to determine the basic
2003 by CRC Press LLC

Developing an Earthquake Mitigation Program

34-13

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

structural load-carrying systems and to identify seismic performance issues related to conguration and structural detailing. Review available geotechnical reports for the site to determine a site class for use in developing seismic hazards and to identify conditions that could lead to ground failure or other site instabilities. Where site-specic soils data are not available, reference should be made to available generalized geotechnical data, such as found on regional maps produced by the U.S. Geologic Survey and the California Division of Mines and Geology. Reference should also be made to the seismic safety element of local general plans. Perform a seismic hazard for analysis for the site to identify the location of the site relative to signicant faults, and to estimate the probable intensity of ground acceleration as a function of return period (or probability of exceedance). Conduct a visual survey of the building to document the structures condition and to conrm that available construction documents are representative of existing conditions. To the extent that construction documents are unavailable, perform eld investigation to develop sufcient information to identify the vertical and lateral structural load-carrying systems, and to quantify their strengths. Perform a preliminary structural evaluation to quantify the probable performance of the building structure to resist the effects of ground shaking having a 10% probability of exceedance in 50 years. (Note that either more or less probable levels of ground shaking may be specied, based on the importance of individual facilities. For facilities located within a few miles of major active faults, it may be more appropriate to specify that the evaluation be performed for a median estimate of the ground shaking resulting from a characteristic earthquake on that fault.) The evaluation should, as a minimum, conform to the requirements of FEMA-310 [Federal Emergency Management Agency, 1998] for a tier 1 evaluation. Alternative evaluations that quantify the adequacy of the seismic-force-resisting system considering strength, ductility, and conguration issues may be used. Develop an inventory of critical nonstructural components, including building utility equipment (power supply, HVAC systems), operating equipment, ceilings, building fascia panels, elevators, and re protection systems. Identify the adequacy of installation of these nonstructural components to resist damage. Develop a preliminary opinion as to the probable performance of the facilities, in the event of the designated earthquake ground motion (see item 5 above) using the performance levels contained in FEMA-273 and FEMA-310 [Federal Emergency Management Agency, 1997, 1998]. Prepare a written report documenting the scope of study, the ndings, and recommendations, with written documentation of the evaluation process (FEMA-310 checklists, calculations, etc.) included as appendices. If preliminary study indicates signicant potential for earthquake-induced ground failure and sufcient site-specic soils data are not available to conclusively assess this, the report should include a recommendation for site-specic geotechnical investigation. If the existing construction of the structure is not sufciently well dened to permit quantication of its structural characteristics, include recommendations for detailed eld investigations to conrm the construction.

34.6.1.2 Phase II: Detailed Investigation and Conceptual Retrot Design 1. Review the phase I evaluation report and available construction documents for the facility to develop an overall understanding of the buildings construction and its probable seismic performance. 2. Conduct a visual survey of the building to observe the building condition and note obvious deviations from the available documentation. Observe potential opportunities for introduction of seismic upgrade elements. Note sensitive areas of the building, such as historic spaces, trafc corridors, etc. that may not be impacted by seismic upgrade measures.

2003 by CRC Press LLC

34-14

Earthquake Engineering Handbook

3. Meet with the facility manager to discuss alternative performance criteria and to select an appropriate criterion, or set of criteria. Also discuss restrictions on placement of retrot elements, relative to building appearance and functionality concerns. 4. If recommended in the phase I evaluation, perform eld investigation of the building to conrm the details of its construction and material strengths. 5. If recommended in the phase I evaluation, obtain site-specic geotechnical data to evaluate potential ground failure and associated mitigation measures. 6. Perform structural engineering calculations to quantify seismic deciencies in the building relative to the selected performance levels. As a minimum, the criteria of FEMA-310 for a tier 2 evaluation should be performed. Alternatively, the performance analysis procedures contained in the California Building Code, Division IIIR, in FEMA-273, or in the California Seismic Safety Commissions SSC-9601 may be used. 7. Review alternative potential methods for seismic upgrade for each specied performance criterion, to a level sufcient to conrm feasibility and to select a recommended approach. Meet with the facility manager to review the alternatives and to agree on the appropriateness of the recommended approach. 8. Develop conceptual-level upgrade designs for each specied performance criteria. Supporting calculations shall be performed to a sufcient level of detail to conrm that the overall size and scope of the recommendations are appropriate. The level of detail should be sufcient to permit an ROM cost estimate to be performed. Consideration should be given to collateral upgrades triggered by the seismic work, including disabled access, re/life safety, and other code upgrades. 9. Prepare conceptual-level sketches showing recommended upgrades for nonstructural components. 10. Prepare preliminary cost estimates for the recommended seismic upgrade work, for each performance criterion, together with required collateral upgrades. 11. Prepare a report indicating the scope of the study, the ndings with regard to building deciency and performance, and the recommendations for alternative levels of upgrade, as well as any recommendations for additional investigation to be performed as part of nal design. Include schematic drawings documenting the upgrade recommendations and cost estimating worksheets in an appendix. 34.6.1.3 Phase III: Construction Documents and Construction Support 1. Assemble a complete design team, including project management, structural engineering, architecture, mechanical and electrical engineering, and cost estimating, as required to support the development of construction documents. 2. Review all available documentation for the building as well as previous evaluation reports and supporting calculations in order to develop an understanding of the building deciencies and recommended upgrade approach. 3. Meet with the building ofcial as necessary to conrm the design criteria and proposed approach, as well as to conrm the extent of required collateral upgrades. 4. Develop construction documents, including drawings and specications, together with supporting calculations, to implement the recommended structural upgrades, together with all required collateral upgrades. Submit copies of construction documents to client for review, at the 40% and 90% stages of completion. Final construction documents shall be suitable for obtaining building permits, competitive construction bids, and for executing the work. 5. Prepare an estimate of probable construction cost at each stage of document submittal and for the nal construction documents. 6. Provide support to client in the development of bid packages for construction contracts. 7. Respond to comments from plan checkers and revise construction documents as necessary to obtain approval. 8. Respond to bidder requests for clarication.

2003 by CRC Press LLC

Developing an Earthquake Mitigation Program

34-15

9. Provide support to client in evaluation of construction contract bids for completeness and consistency with the requirements of the construction documents. 10. Attend periodic meetings at the construction site, during the construction period, to coordinate construction progress. 11. Conduct periodic site visits to conrm that the work is generally being conducted in accordance with the design requirements. 12. Review contractor submittals and shop drawings. 13. Respond to contractor Requests for Information and assist client in negotiation of contractor change order requests. 14. Review special inspection and test reports. 15. Perform a walkthrough of the project site at 95% completion to develop a punchlist of items not completed by contractor.

34.6.2 Funding the Program

Like all programs, earthquake risk management requires the investment of funds. The initial phases of the program, in which the risk is assessed and mitigation options explored, typically entails relatively modest cost. By spreading these tasks out over a period of one or two years, most organizations will be able to accommodate these costs within their normal operating budgets. However, major programs of capital improvement will typically require extraordinary sources of funding. The following sources should generally be considered when planning programs of seismic mitigation: General operating and maintenance funds. Not all seismic upgrade projects are particularly costly and some seismic upgrades can be done at nominal cost. For example, most equipment items can be anchored or braced for seismic resistance at a per-item cost of a few hundred dollars or less. Many organizations will be able to cover signicant seismic upgrade activities out of their general operating and maintenance funds. Bond issues. If an organization understands its existing earthquake risk and is convinced that this is unacceptable, it may be willing to support additional bonded indebtedness as a means of raising the necessary funds. This is a particularly appropriate mechanism for the public sector. For example, the City of San Francisco obtained permission from its electorate to raise more than $100 million for earthquake safety retrots of re stations and other municipal buildings. From a strategic perspective, such bond measures are most successful in the period immediately following a major earthquake somewhere in the world, when the publics attention is drawn to the issue of earthquake risk. Special use fees. In some cases, it may be possible to support the cost of seismic upgrade through the establishment of special use fees. As an example, the State of California raised tolls on bridges crossing San Francisco Bay as a means of funding seismic upgrades of these structures. Hazard mitigation grants. Occasionally, special grants become available from the federal and/or state government for partial funding of seismic mitigation work. These grants may be offered as (1) seed money for demonstration projects, to encourage and attract other sources of funding; or (2) in order to reduce risk of damage in future earthquakes and to help communities become more self-sufcient. These grants are usually available only for public or nonprot organizations and often are restricted to, or give preference to, certain types of projects. For example, using funding obtained under the Proposition 122 bond program, the State of California made limited mitigation funding available to cities, counties, and similar agencies. Generally, projects to strengthen emergency response facilities, such as re stations, police stations, and city halls, received priority over other types of projects. When mitigation grant programs are available, communities must typically apply for funding in competition with others. In addition, it is usually necessary for the enterprise to provide some co-funding of the project, often in the amount of 10 to 20% of total project costs.
2003 by CRC Press LLC

34-16

Earthquake Engineering Handbook

Tax preferences and credits. Certain tax credit and tax preference incentives are available for the rehabilitation of facilities. Special facilities, such as qualied historic landmarks, are prime candidates for other tax incentives. These incentives are typically applicable only to private, for-prot enterprises. In order to qualify for these incentives, it is necessary to comply with certain historic preservation standards and to be subjected to a review and approval process for the design.

34.6.3 Coordinating with Other Parts of the Organization

It is very important to include earthquake risk mitigation measures with other facets of an organizations asset management program. Key issues related to this are the following: Often, by performing seismic upgrade work concurrently with other planned projects, it is possible to reduce the cost and disruption of the upgrade work. For example, a common requirement of seismic upgrade programs for low-rise buildings with wood roof structures is to increase the nailing of the plywood roof sheathing. This can only be done upon removal of the roong. Clearly, if such upgrade work is performed concurrently with routine replacement of the roong system, it will be far more economical. If an existing facility is assessed as incapable of providing adequate seismic performance for its current use, consider changing its mission to be more compatible with its seismic performance category. For example, if a critical care wing of a hospital is judged incapable of immediate postearthquake occupancy, and there is simultaneous need to develop new outpatient care at the facility, the best choice may be to build new critical care space and convert the existing space to use for outpatient care. Consideration should be given to the length of time a facility is expected to remain in service. If a facility is scheduled for replacement or retirement in the near future, it makes little sense to invest in upgrade of the facility. Construction for seismic improvements to a facility will often trigger mandatory requirements to perform other types of upgrades, such as disabled access improvements, hazardous material abatement, and re/life safety improvements. These collateral upgrade requirements can have substantial impact on the implementation cost and, in some cases, the cost of collateral upgrades is higher than the seismic construction cost. It is important to account for these impacts when evaluating the cost of seismic mitigation. Earthquake risk cannot be managed effectively in a vacuum. The decision-maker and the risk manager must involve the facilities or asset manager in planning and implementing the mitigation program in order to assure that collateral issues are addressed and all capital improvements are coordinated. It is also important to ask professional consultants, who may be retained to assist in quantifying risk and suggesting mitigation alternatives, to be mindful of these needs.

34.6.4 Perform Seismic Retrot

Performing the seismic retrot consists of the following steps: 1. Retaining a team of design professionals to develop construction documents, using the phased approach described above. Result: a series of specications for performing the desired upgrade work and reliable estimates of probable construction cost. 2. Identifying funding sources for performing the work. Available funding sources were discussed in the previous section, and include: General operating and reserve funds Grant programs operated by HUD (Housing and Urban Development), FEMA, and other agencies General obligation bonds
2003 by CRC Press LLC

Developing an Earthquake Mitigation Program

34-17

Result: sufcient funds to execute the required construction work. 3. Hiring retrot contractors. This is an important aspect of the retrot process. As with hiring a contractor for any other purpose, one of the most important attributes to look for is experience and satisfactory previous performance. Generally, public agencies will have to use a competitive bid process for the selection of a contractor. It is recommended that a process of bidder prequalication be performed, prior to requesting construction bids, to assure that bidders have adequate resources and experience. Result: on-board contractor, ready to go. 4. Scheduling the work so as to minimize disruption, in coordination with tenants, managers, or operators, is another important aspect. Note that construction scheduling can have a signicant impact on construction costs. Therefore, any scheduling requirements or constraints that will be imposed on the contractor, such as limiting work to certain periods of time or requiring that work in certain sections of a facility be staged, should be clearly included in the general conditions section of the specications used to solicit contractor bids. The selected contractor should be requested to submit a detailed construction schedule, incorporating the client-specied milestones and indicating the specic timing of work by different trades. Result: schedule for construction. 5. Construction. Result: retrotted facilities. 6. Maintaining the retrotted facility. Retain as-builts, specications, and engineers maintenance instructions in the retrotted building or other archive. Use a plaque or other notice to ensure that these materials are not lost or overlooked. Result: complete record of retrot.

34.6.5 Dealing with Residual Risk

After the seismic upgrade work has been completed, the seismic risk associated with a facility will be greatly reduced from original levels. However, some residual risk will remain. Prudent risk management suggests that effective steps be taken to further minimize the residual risk, through the steps outlined below. 34.6.5.1 Emergency Plan Even relatively minor damage to a facility can result in extended interruption of service and loss of use, if no-one knows what to do about assessing its condition, securing potentially hazardous contents and utilities, and conducting repairs so that service can be restored. Emergency response plans that clearly designate the persons responsible for each of these actions, and how they can be contacted in the event of an emergency, can signicantly reduce the amount of confusion and lost time when an earthquake actually occurs. In addition to basic information on who is responsible for specic actions when an emergency occurs, emergency response plans should include information on the critical equipment and systems within the building, the structural system, expected types and locations of damage, and checklists for specic postearthquake actions to be taken. For critical facilities, the emergency operations plan can also include provision for alternative work spaces, in the event that damage is so severe that reoccupancy of the facility within the short term is not feasible. 34.6.5.2 Risk Transfer Earthquake insurance can be an effective method of guarding against the direct nancial losses associated with an earthquake and is commonly used in the private sector for this purpose. Earthquake insurance is very effective in reimbursing a property owner for the direct costs related to repair of damage. It is less effective with regard to reimbursement for business interruption costs, as often the quantication of these costs is difcult and therefore subject to dispute. It is also important to note that most earthquake insurance policies include signicant deductibles and will not cover upgrades to the facility that may be triggered by the building ofcial as part of damage repair work. The cost of earthquake insurance is highly variable and depends as much on the global nancial markets and health of the insurance industry as it does on the actual risk associated with a facility. In some years insurance can be obtained at a fraction

2003 by CRC Press LLC

34-18

Earthquake Engineering Handbook

of its real value, while in other years, it may cost several times its actual value or may not be available at all. This is why it is prudent not to rely on earthquake insurance as the sole means of risk management. Another aspect of risk transfer involves an organizations suppliers and customers. To the extent that provisions for special circumstances in the event of an earthquake can be written into contracts, then the earthquake risk has been transferred. For example, if obligations to purchase supplies or deliver product can be relaxed in the event of an earthquake, then additional time is gained by the organization during its crisis period. Keeping this aspect in mind during contract negotiations, as an ongoing aspect, can pay handsome dividends in the event of an earthquake, at little or no cost. 34.6.5.3 Physical Redundancy and Geographic Dispersion One of the most effective techniques for mitigation of earthquake risk is to disperse operations into independent locations at different sites. Although the effects of earthquakes can be widely dispersed over a region of many square miles, the most extreme earthquake effects are typically limited to a small fraction of the affected region. If all of the physical facilities associated with an operation are concentrated at a single site or location, there may be signicant potential for damage to this physical facility to completely interrupt operations for an extended period of time. However, if the physical facilities are dispersed to multiple locations, it becomes much less likely that all of these facilities would be damaged to an extent that would limit operations at all of the locations. Thus, dispersion can become an effective tool to maintain at least partial operational capability following a major earthquake. To the extent that the dispersed facilities provide redundant capacity, it may be possible to provide full operational capability if some of the facilities become damaged. 34.6.5.4 Data Backup Redundant storage of critical records and data can be a highly effective risk mitigation technique. Following the 1989 Loma Prieta earthquake, the City of Oaklands Building Department found itself displaced from City Hall, which had been severely damaged by the earthquake. The building department stored microlm copies of the original construction drawings for private buildings in archives maintained within City Hall. The red-tagging of that building effectively made these records unavailable for many months following the earthquake, hampering the efforts of the community to assess and repair damage sustained by other buildings. Had a redundant set of microlm records been maintained in another, offsite, location, it is highly unlikely that access to both sets of data would have been lost. Public agencies and private businesses can maintain their own off-site records storage or, alternatively, they can rely on any of a number of providers of this service. This may be particularly important for electronic records that are maintained on-line. There are a number of private data centers that provide stand-by electronic records storage, as well as data processing capability. 34.6.5.5 Retain Structural Engineers and Contractors Following the 1989 Loma Prieta earthquake, the City of San Franciscos Building Inspection Department found itself overwhelmed by the demand to perform post-earthquake safety inspections of public and private buildings in the city. Even with the assistance of many volunteer inspectors, it took a period of months before all buildings were evaluated and their conditions determined. During this period of time, building owners and tenants were often at a loss to know whether it was safe to reoccupy damaged buildings, leading to extensive economic losses. In order to avoid these problems in future earthquakes, the City of San Francisco later established the voluntary Business Occupancy Resumption Earthquake Inspection Program (BOREIP). Under the BOREIP, building owners can retain qualied structural engineers to perform post-earthquake inspections of their buildings in the event of a future earthquake. These engineers must develop a post-earthquake inspection plan for the building and be certied by the city as deputy building inspectors for the specic building. Under the program BOREIP inspectors are obligated to perform post-earthquake inspections within 36 hours of the occurrence of an earthquake disaster. They then have the authority to post buildings, as inspected, following an earthquake, on behalf of the city.

2003 by CRC Press LLC

Developing an Earthquake Mitigation Program

34-19

Building departments can develop similar programs to speed the post-earthquake recovery of their communities. In addition, even in the absence of such programs, individual public and private building owners and tenants can retain structural engineers to perform rapid post-earthquake assessments of buildings, to advise as to whether the buildings are safe for occupancy and to develop repairs in the event these are required. While these engineers would not have the power to ofcially post a building, they can provide assurance as to the condition of its structure and appropriate recovery actions. It is often benecial to develop retainer agreements with engineers before the earthquake actually occurs. In the days and weeks immediately following a major earthquake, structural engineers are extremely busy and are unlikely to be available on short notice unless advance arrangements have been made. It may also be benecial to develop similar retainer agreements with general contractors, so that there is assurance that in the event repairs are needed, construction capability to effect these repairs will be available.

34.7 Maintaining the Program

In many ways, the actual earthquake mitigation program has been performed when the following actions have been carried through to completion: Facilities have been strengthened, or otherwise dealt with such that their risk is acceptable. Emergency response and business continuity plans have been developed and exercised. Residual risk has been insured, transferred, or accepted. However, organizations are dynamic and facilities, operations, and personnel are constantly changing. Thus, documentation of the steps taken, including the process and criteria, is an important step to complete. As new facilities or operations are developed, the same or enhanced criteria can be applied to them, thus retaining the overall balance of the earthquake mitigation program. As new personnel join the organization, they can review the earthquake mitigation program documentation and maintain the overall goals. Finally, when (not if) the earthquake occurs, there are a number of important steps to be quickly performed, including: 1. Assessing the extent of damage. The rst thing that should be done following an earthquake is to assess the extent of damage that has occurred. It is necessary to assess whether physical facilities that are relied upon for operations are functional and safe, as well as to estimate the amount of time they may be out of service. It is impossible to implement an effective response and recovery program until these data are known. For many public agencies, the responsibility for post-earthquake damage assessment may extend beyond the need to assess the performance of the physical facilities that the agency relies upon for operation, to include an assessment of the extent of damage and loss that has occurred community-wide. For example, if housing in a community is severely impacted, public agencies will be expected to provide for the temporary shelter and care of displaced families. If a number of building collapses have occurred, public agencies will be expected to assist in locating and extracting victims. In order to effectively respond to such needs, it is necessary to be able to rapidly assess the likely extent of damage and loss. These assessments can be made by performing rapid post-earthquake reconnaissance or, alternatively, by implementing one of several disaster simulation software packages that permit rapid estimation of losses. Regardless of the method an agency or business elects to pursue, a current emergency response plan and previously negotiated agreements with necessary engineering consultants and contractors can speed this phase of the recovery effort. 2. Implementing emergency operations procedures. As soon as an assessment of damage is made, and the extent of impairment of ability to provide service and the need for these services is ascertained, recovery operations should commence. In the period immediately following the earthquake, individual public agencies and private businesses will have to rely on their own resources. An
2003 by CRC Press LLC

34-20

Earthquake Engineering Handbook

effective emergency response plan can help to smooth the difcult immediate post-event recovery period. Within days to weeks, outside assistance will begin to become available from such sources as FEMA, the State of California Ofce of Emergency Services, the American Red Cross, and other volunteer agencies. In extreme emergencies, military assistance may also be made available. 3. Restoring normal operations. Over a period of days to weeks and, in the worst disasters, perhaps a period of years, normal operations will be restored. The length of time necessary for restoration of normal operations will be directly dependent on the severity of the event, as well as the extent to which risks were identied and mitigated, and emergency response plans developed prior to the event. It many cases, what is deemed to be normal operations after the earthquake is not the same condition that existed before the event. Earthquakes can have far-reaching economic and social impacts that can completely change the character of a community and the long-term protability of individual businesses. For this reason, it is particularly important that public leaders view earthquake risk reduction not only as their responsibility with regard to protection of public facilities, but a responsibility that the entire community must share. One of the major benets of proactive risk mitigation on the part of a public agency is that it sets a leadership example for the community at large. 4. Assessing the lessons learned. An important but often overlooked concluding step in the process is a carefully conducted review of the loss and recovery experience. No matter how well prepared a community or business is for an emergency, it will typically nd that unanticipated problems developed and that preparation could have been better. Although severe earthquakes are rare events, it is possible for some communities in California, Japan, or other high seismicity regions to experience major damaging events several times during a typical lifetime. The San Fernando Valley, for example, experienced large-magnitude events in both 1971 and 1994, located within a few miles of each other. A careful assessment of what went wrong and what went right in the disaster can allow for better preparation for the next event, as well as serve as valuable learning tools for other communities that have not yet been affected by earthquake disaster.

Dening Terms
Benet The loss avoided by mitigation. Benet-cost ratio Ratio of avoided losses to cost required to avoid those losses. Both amounts should
be computed on the same basis. For example, if the mitigation cost is the current cost of retrotting, then the benet should be computed in present value dollars. Earthquake mitigation Actions taken to reduce the effects or unwanted consequences of earthquakes, such as human casualties, structural damage, or business interruption. Actions can be taken prior to an earthquake (e.g., strengthening a building) or after the earthquake (e.g., activating a business continuity plan). Exposure What is at risk that is the total value of assets that could conceivably be lost due to a hazard such as earthquake. If 100 workers are employed in a company in or near one location, that companys exposure at that location is 100 employees. Lateral-force-resisting system (LFRS) The structural system in a building or structure that resists lateral forces, arising, for example, from an earthquake. In order to resist an earthquake, a structure must have a LFRS continuous to the foundation. Surprisingly, many pre-code structures may not have a demonstrable LFRS, and therefore are collapse hazards. Risk management An integral activity of an organization, normally centralized in a risk management department headed by the risk manager and associated with the chief nancial function. Ideally, risk managers monitor and manage all sources of risk to the organization aside from those associated with the organizations central mission. For example, in a manufacturing company, the risk manager will deal with property, life, and health risk, but not market or foreign exchange risks or worker safety. In dealing with property risk, the risk manager will normally purchase

2003 by CRC Press LLC

Developing an Earthquake Mitigation Program

34-21

property insurance, but will also examine alternatives to insurance, such as strengthening a building for earthquake so as to reduce the need for earthquake insurance. Rough order of magnitude (ROM) estimate of costs ROM estimates are made at an early stage in the design or development of a project. By ROM is not meant, in the mathematical sense, variations on the order of powers of 10, but rather within a factor of 2. Therefore, if the ROM cost estimate for strengthening a building is $1 million, it is anticipated that the nal cost will not be less than $500,000 and not more than $2 million. ROM estimates are rened in later stages of the design or development process, such that nal cost estimates are usually 20% or less.

References
Federal Emergency Management Agency. 1997. NEHRP Guidelines for the Seismic Rehabilitation of Buildings, FEMA 273, prepared by the Building Seismic Safety Council for the Federal Emergency Management Agency, Washington, D.C. Federal Emergency Management Agency. 1998. Handbook for the Seismic Evaluation of Buildings: A Prestandard, FEMA 310, prepared by the American Society of Civil Engineers for the Federal Emergency Management Agency, Washington, D.C. Saaty, T. 1980. The Analytical Hierarchy Process, John Wiley & Sons, New York.

Further Reading
Earthquake Risk Management: A Toolkit for Decision-Makers, prepared by the California Seismic Safety Commission and available via their Web site (www.seismic.ca.gov), is a useful compendium of methods and tools for developing and implementing an earthquake mitigation program. The author was involved in the development of the Toolkit and drew on it for this chapter, but it contains much additional material and is highly recommended. Also recommended are two accompanying publications: A Guide for Decision-Makers and Earthquake Risk Management: Mitigation Success Stories, both also available via the Commissions Web site.

2003 by CRC Press LLC