USRC Building Rating System For Earthqua

IMPLEMENTATION MANUAL
USRC BUILDING RATING SYSTEM

FOR
EARTHQUAKE HAZARDS
September 15, 2015
U.S. Resiliency Council

Implementation Manual
© 2015
Page |1
Acknowledgements
This manual has been developed by the USRC Technical Advisory Committee with input and review
by the USRC Founding Members and the USRC Stakeholder Advisory Committee.
There are a total of 64 Founding Members and all are listed on the USRC web site www.usrc.org. In
June 2014 the 1st Organizational meeting of the Founding Members was held to develop the
organizational structure and operational procedures of the USRC. The Founding Members met 11
times prior to the official launch of the USRC. At the Founding Members second meeting they
authorized the formation of two major USRC committees, the Technical Advisory Committee (TAC)
and the Stakeholders Advisory Committee (SAC). The TAC met 14 times prior to the official launch
of the organization. It consisted of 42 representatives from the Founding Member organizations. The
SAC consisted of 45 members from the user community and met a total of five times providing
valuable information to the Founding Members and TAC as they developed the technical and
organizational issues prior to launch of the USRC.
A list of all subcommittee members that contributed to the development of the USRC and this
Implementation Manual are provided in Appendix F. The contribution of all is gratefully
acknowledged.

© 2015
Page |2
Contents
1 Introduction 3
2 The Rating Process 4
2.1 Rating Types – Transaction and Verified 6
2.2 USRC Certified Rating Professionals (CRP) 6
2.3 Engineering Evaluation 6
2.4 Rating Application Submission 7
2.5 Technical Review 7
2.6 Elevated Review 8
2.7 Granting of a USRC Rating 9
2.8 Confirmation of the Rating and the CRP by the USRC 9
2.9 Limitations and Disclaimer 9
3 Features of the USRC Building Rating System 10
3.1 Rating Definitions 10
3.2 Underlying Evaluation Methodologies 14
3.3 Seismic Hazard Level 14
3.4 Rating Scope 14
3.5 Time Limit on a Rating 14
3.6 Translating the underlying evaluation 15
4 The Rating Request Submission 15
4.1 Executive Summary of the Rating Application 15
4.2 Submittal 16
4.3 USRC Rating Certificates 16
5 References 17
APPENDIX A – RATING CERTIFICATES
APPENDIX B – CERTIFICATION, DISCIPLINE AND APPEALS POLICIES
APPENDIX C – RATING REVIEW PROCEDURES
APPENDIX D – ASCE 31 EVALUATION METHODOLOGY
APPENDIX E – FEMA P58 BASED RATING METHODOLOGY
APPENDIX F – USRC DEVELOPMENT PARTICIPANTS

© 2015
Page |3
Introduction
The mission of the United States Resiliency Council (USRC) is to establish and implement meaningful
rating systems that describe the performance of buildings during earthquakes and other natural
hazard events, to educate the general public to understand these risks, credential professional
engineers to perform ratings, and review ratings for conformance to national consensus-based
technical methodologies.
Ratings will benefit building owners, lenders, tenants and government jurisdictions by increasing the
value of well-designed properties and providing a means to quantify risk. Policy makers will use
USRC ratings to compare and prioritize relative risks and to form a basis for developing long-term
community resilience policy. The USRC vision is that it will play a similar role in educating the
community about building performance in earthquakes and other natural hazards that the US Green
Building Council (USGBC®) plays educating the community about the importance of sustainable
design.
Current methods to define and evaluate building performance are often inconsistent and lack both
standardization and verification. The USRC has adopted a certification program for professional
engineers that will require specific knowledge of structural engineering and the performance of
buildings subject to natural and man-made hazards. The USRC will develop training materials and
offer courses and workshops to enhance the technical skills of certified rating professionals. USRC
certification as a Certified Rating Professional (CRP) will lead to a high level of technical competence
and consistency in delivering USRC Ratings. Completed rating reports prepared by CRP’s will be
audited periodically through a technical review process. The USRC will conduct these audits using
Certified Rating Reviewers (CRR), thus preserving the credibility of the overall rating system.
This implementation manual provides standardized and consistent procedures, methodologies and
translation procedures for obtaining a USRC Rating for performance of buildings subject to
earthquake hazards. Implementation procedures for obtaining ratings for other hazards will be
established as methodologies are developed and adopted for these hazards. The manual and its
appendices describe:
1. The requirements for professional or structural engineers who will be certified by the USRC
to develop USRC Ratings
2. The types of Ratings available from the USRC
3. The process by which an owner will apply to receive a Rating
4. The review procedures the USRC will use to determine the validity of a Rating.
All rating system users should understand the process for producing a USRC Rating (Section 2 ),
the essential features of the rating system (Section 3), and the documentation required to accompany
a rating (Section 4). Each of these topics is discussed further in Appendices A through E.
This manual is not meant to be exhaustive. Additional information can be found by visiting the USRC
website at www.usrc.org and the USRC web portal at www.usrc-portal.org. if users of this manual
have specific questions regarding the process for obtaining a USRC Rating, USRC contact
information can be obtained from the USRC website.

© 2015
Page |4
The Rating Process

Producing a Rating involves the following basic steps as outlined below and in the flowchart of Figure
1.
1. The building owner determines the type of USRC Rating desired: Transaction Rating or
Verified Rating (Section Sec 2.1). Transaction Ratings are primarily used for financial and
real estate transactions and Verified Ratings are for public display in the entrance of a
building and for use in marketing materials.
2. The building owner selects and contracts with a USRC Certified Rating Professional (CRP)
(Section 2.2 and www.usrc-portal.org) to complete a seismic evaluation of the building.
3. The CRP performs a seismic evaluation of the subject building using one of the USRC
approved methodologies (Section 3.2 and Appendices D & E). The evaluation is an
engineering product produced by the CRP, independent of the USRC, and the opinions
produced by the CRP are solely the responsibility of the CRP.
4. The CRP translates the findings of the evaluation into a three-part Rating using the USRC
approved translation methodologies (Section 3.6 and Appendices D & E.)
5. The proposed rating, based on the CRP’s evaluation, is submitted by the CRP or the
building owner to the USRC web portal (www.usrc-portal.org) along with appropriate
documentation (Section 4), application fees and the request for either a Transaction Rating
or a Verified Rating.
6. The USRC reviews the submission for completeness and will either issue a Transaction
Rating certificate or organize a technical or elevated review for the issuance of a Verified
Rating certificate (Section 4.3 and Appendix A).

© 2015
Page |5
Figure 1 - USRC Rating Process Flowchart

© 2015
Page |6
Rating Types – Transaction and Verified

Transaction Rating
Transaction Ratings are primarily used for financial and real estate transactions and are not permitted
for public display or to be used in marketing materials. They are limited to three stars in each of the
three rating dimensions.
Transaction Ratings are subject to a random process of technical review for the purpose of Quality
Control and confirming that the CRP has applied the applicable procedures as they were intended.
Not every Transaction Rating is reviewed by the USRC.
A Transaction Rating shall remain confidential and is intended for the purpose of satisfying due-
diligence efforts of the Rating owner. A Transaction Rating is not transferable, and expires five years
after it is granted, or sooner as described in Section 3.5. The USRC makes no warranty regarding
the reliance of information contained in the Rating or the underlying engineering evaluation by third
parties.
Verified Rating
Verified Ratings are for public display in the entrance of a building and for use in marketing materials
subject to the terms and conditions for use of USRC trademarks (Appendix A).
Every Verified Rating is subjected to either a technical or elevated review as described in Section
2.6.
A Verified Rating is not transferable, and must be re-registered with the USRC every five years, or
sooner as described in Section 3.5. The USRC makes no warranty regarding the reliance of
information contained in the Rating or the underlying engineering evaluation by third parties.
USRC Certified Rating Professionals (CRP)

The rating system is to be applied by USRC Certified Rating Professionals (CRP) with appropriate
experience in the design and evaluation of building structures subject to earthquakes or other natural
hazards rated by the USRC. The USRC Certification Committee is responsible for evaluating the
qualifications of potential CRP candidates and granting or denying certification. The USRC endeavors
to maintain a high level of expertise, consistency, and credibility through the certification of CRPs;
therefore Rating applications submitted by owners will only be considered if they have been developed
by CRPs. The qualifications and application procedure to become a CRP are provided in Appendix
B.
Engineering Evaluation
The USRC Rating is a translation between an engineering evaluation and descriptions of building
performance that communicate information about a building to stakeholders. The Rating is not the
evaluation itself. Engineering evaluations of a building are performed by licensed professional or
structural engineers, engaged by a building owner who are USRC CRPs. Only CRPs may submit a
© 2015
Page |7
rating, based upon an engineering evaluation. The USRC makes no warranty of any opinions
developed by the CRP engaged by the owner to prepare an evaluation. The USRC will not indemnify
the CRP for any opinions contained in the evaluation. The use of an engineering evaluation by the
CRP, Owner or third parties, other than solely for the purpose of obtaining a USRC Rating, is outside
the consideration of the USRC.
To be considered for a USRC Rating, an engineering evaluation must be done in conformance to one
of the accepted underlying methodologies described in Section 3.2 and summarized in Appendices
D and E. Additional evaluation methodologies may be accepted by the USRC in the future.
All engineering, including seismic evaluation, involves judgment. When deriving a Rating, appropriate
engineering judgment should be applied during the application of the underlying evaluation
methodology and to the results of that underlying evaluation, not during the translation of those
results into a Rating. Engineering judgment should only be applied by the engineer who performs the
underlying evaluation. Where applied, judgment should be identified clearly in the supporting
documents so that the assumptions can be technically reviewed.
Rating Application Submission

Once the CRP has completed an engineering evaluation that is intended to be used as supporting
documentation for a USRC Rating, using one of the underlying methodologies described in Section
3.2, the engineer will use the translation procedures described in Section 3.6 to develop the USRC
Rating in each of the three performance dimensions. The CRP shall submit the engineering
evaluation, proposed rating, and any other supporting documentation to the USRC through the
USRC web portal (www.usrc-portal.org). The Verified Rating developed by the engineer is
preliminary and must be approved by the USRC before it is considered a valid USRC Rating.
Fees may be paid either by the CRP or an owner’s representative and are based on the type of
Rating requested and the size of the building. Fees are listed on the USRC web portal and are
independent of any fees paid by the owner directly to a CRP for the development of the engineering
evaluation.
Technical Review
The USRC provides quality control in the form of a technical or elevated review of the submitted rating
types. In general, each USRC CRP is responsible for the quality of the Rating, just as he or she is
responsible for the quality of the underlying seismic evaluation upon which the rating is based. The
specific details of a technical and elevated review for USRC adopted earthquake hazard evaluation
methodologies are given in Appendix C.
Technical and elevated reviews (Section 2.6) are performed by USRC Certified Rating Reviewers
(CRR); licensed design professionals with at least ten years of experience in the evaluation of
buildings subject to earthquakes and other natural hazards.
If a serious discrepancy is found as a part of a technical review it will be referred to the USRC Rating
Review Committee (RRC) for disposition. The RRC will decide the seriousness of the discrepancy
and will have the authority to review prior ratings and/or require technical review of future ratings
from that CRP at the CRP’s expense.

© 2015
Page |8
If egregious manipulation of the USRC Rating System is deemed to have occurred, the RRC may at
its discretion, refer the CRP to the USRC Discipline Committee for loss of Certification, subject to
USRC policies on disciplinary action and appeals as described in Appendix B.
Transaction Rating
Transaction Ratings are subject to a random process of technical review for the purpose of
confirming that the CRP has applied the applicable procedures as they were intended. Not every
Transaction Rating is reviewed by the USRC. There is no additional charge to the owner for a review
of the transaction rating and the results of the random review will not be provided to the owner unless
the RRC believes a serious discrepancy has occurred.
Verified Rating
The USRC requires a technical review for every Verified Rating prior to the issuance of the Rating
Certificate. The cost to the owner for a verified rating includes the cost of the technical review.
Elevated Review
Elevated reviews will be required for certain building evaluations as described below. The CRR may
elect to discuss discrepancies found as part of an elevated review directly with the CRP who
developed the building evaluation. Serious discrepancies found as a part of an elevated review will
be referred to the USRC RRC for disposition in a similar manner as for technical reviews.
Transaction Rating
Elevated reviews are not required to receive a Transaction Rating.
Verified Rating
The USRC requires an elevated, or more detailed, review for Verified Ratings, as detailed in Appendix
E, for buildings that meet the following conditions:
 Buildings with a Rating of 4 or 5 stars in any dimension
 Buildings defined by ASCE 7-10 as Risk Category Type III and IV
 Vulnerable building types that have a three star or greater rating
o Unreinforced masonry
o Reinforced concrete buildings designed pre-1985 UBC
o Soft / Weak Story Buildings as defined by ASCE 31 standard
o Steel Moment Frame Buildings designed pre-2000, unless the pre-Northridge
connection issue has been addressed
o Other known non-ductile framed systems
 Other unusual systems defined as any building that is not one of the common building
types defined in ASCE 41-13 or would not qualify to be evaluated using the Tier 1
procedure in ASCE 41-13.
Buildings that have a three star or greater Safety rating with significant geologic site hazards
as determined from USGS or CDMG maps, or site-specific geotechnical investigations at the level
of ground shaking for which the rating is applicable.
 Liquefaction
© 2015
Page |9
 Slope Failure
 Surface Fault Rupture
The CRP may request exemption from an elevated review if a previous peer review has been
performed on the evaluation, as described in Appendix C.
Granting of a USRC Rating

Transaction Ratings will be granted by the USRC as soon as practical (the goal is within 1-3 business
days) once a complete application, supporting documents and required fees have been submitted to
the USRC. Technical reviews of a Transaction Rating are not required prior to the issuance of a
Transaction Rating. The CRP and the owner applicant will receive notification of the issuance of a
Transaction Rating and a certificate.
Verified Ratings will not be issued until the evaluation has received a Technical and/or Elevated
Review. The duration of the review will depend on the complexity of the building and the evaluation.
If the USRC agrees with the rating proposed by the submitter, the owner applicant will receive
notification of the issuance of a Verified Rating, a certificate, and placard posting information. If the
USRC does not agree with the rating proposed by the submitter after some interaction with the CRP,
the Rating request will be denied, subject to appeal as described in Appendix B.
Confirmation of the Rating and the CRP by the USRC

The certification of a CRP and the validity of a Rating can be checked by contacting the USRC. For
both Transaction and Verified Ratings the USRC can confirm the name of the certified rating
professional that performed a rating, and can confirm whether a Rating was granted by the USRC
for the specific building. The USRC cannot provide the actual evaluation, Rating or a copy of the
Rating certificates to other parties unless authorized by the owner.
Limitations and Disclaimer

LIMITATIONS: A USRC Rating is a qualitative summary of results from a separate evaluation,
performed by a qualified engineer who is certified by, but not employed by the USRC, of a building’s
anticipated performance in a natural hazard. Ratings are intended to communicate building
performance in consistent terms that are understandable by the general public. Accordingly, this
Rating is not intended to be relied upon for any purpose requiring a specific quantitative measure
from the Evaluation.
The evaluation underlying this Rating uses technical methodologies which require the exercise of
engineering judgement within standards of care customarily exercised by qualified professionals
practicing under similar circumstances. This Rating is valid only for the type and level of hazard that
was evaluated and is also subject to all other limitations stated in the Evaluation Report on which it
is based. Additional specific limitations are stated in the USRC Rating definitions.
The performance of this building in an event may differ from the description associated with its
assigned Rating, due to the qualitative nature of the Rating, the uncertainties inherent in the
underlying evaluation, and the variability of events to which the building is exposed.

© 2015
P a g e | 10
Continued validity of this specific Rating could be affected at any time with or without the knowledge
of the building owner or the USRC. The following is a non-exhaustive list of occurrences that could
require the Rating to be re-evaluated:
 Any major alteration, including any alteration that affects the building mass, structural
system, or nonstructural components
 Building damage (e.g. earthquake, fire, corrosion) or significant deferred maintenance
 Advances in science or engineering, including but not limited to lessons learned in events
DISCLAIMER: The USRC Rating itself is not an engineering work product and does not represent an
engineering opinion. The USRC is not responsible for engineering work products by the engineer
who performed the evaluation. USRC expressly disclaims any and all liability relating to claims
involving building performance under any circumstances.
Features of the USRC Building Rating System

The Rating System is a new tool, but it is related to existing engineering tools, procedures, and
professional practices. Therefore, proper use of the Rating System demands an understanding of
what it is intended to do, how it was developed, and how it is expected to work.
This section briefly notes certain essential features of the Rating System. Further explanation and
discussion is provided in Appendices C through E and in the listed References (especially SEAONC
EBC BRS, 2012).
This Implementation Manual is specifically for use in developing USRC Ratings for buildings subject
to earthquake hazards. Implementation procedures for hazards other than earthquakes are under
development by the USRC.
Rating Definitions
The USRC Building Rating System provides star ratings over three separate dimensions
corresponding to the following selected consequences: SAFETY, DAMAGE expressed as Repair
Cost, and RECOVERY expressed as Time To Regain Basic Functions. Descriptions of what each
dimension covers and explanations of each star rating threshold are provided below.
For earthquake hazards, the ratings below are based on the building’s expected performance, using
USRC adopted technical methodologies, in earthquake events similar to those used in building codes
and standards for design of new structures. The hazard levels for events other than earthquakes are
under development by the USRC. Risks from these hazards are not currently identified or rated by
the USRC, but may be present for the building under evaluation.

© 2015
P a g e | 11
Safety
The SAFETY rating dimension addresses thresholds for the building in terms of the potential for
people in the building to get out after an earthquake event and avoid bodily injuries or loss of life
during the event. A safety rating is required in all building evaluations.
Safety Rating
Injuries and blocking of exit paths unlikely

***** Expected performance results in conditions that are unlikely to cause injuries or
to keep people from exiting the building.
Serious injuries unlikely

**** Expected performance results in conditions that are unlikely to cause serious
injuries.
Loss of life unlikely

*** Expected performance results in conditions that are unlikely to cause loss of life.
Loss of life possible in isolated locations

Expected performance results in conditions associated with partial collapse or
** falling objects that have potential to cause loss of life at locations within or
around the building.
Loss of life likely in the building

* Expected performance results in conditions associated with building collapse,
which has a high potential to cause loss of life within or around the building.

© 2015
P a g e | 12
Damage
The DAMAGE rating dimension reflects an estimate of the cost to repair the building after an event,
such that it can continue to be used as it was at the time the rating was last issued.
DAMAGE is defined as a percentage of the building’s overall replacement cost, a common insurance
concept measuring how much it would cost to construct a new building approximately the same as it
was prior to the event. DAMAGE includes the cost of damage to all structural, architectural,
mechanical, electrical and plumbing components of a building but does not include the cost of
damage to the contents. Contents values may vary depending on how the building was being used
at the time of the event. Separately, content damage can be estimated and reported once the
contents are defined. DAMAGE is furthermore determined without consideration of overall market
conditions in effect following the event, such as post-event increases in local construction costs, and
it does not include factors such as business interruption associated with loss of use or occupancy
restrictions, design fees, permit fees, historic preservation, or mandatory upgrades triggered by
building code regulations.
Damage Rating
Minimal Damage
***** Repair Cost likely less than 5% of building replacement cost
Moderate Damage
**** Repair Cost likely less than 10% of building replacement cost.
Significant Damage
*** Repair Cost likely less than 20% of building replacement cost.
Substantial damage
** Repair Cost likely less than 40% of building replacement cost.
Severe Damage
* Repair Cost likely greater than 40% of building replacement cost.
Not Evaluated
NE Repair Cost has not been evaluated.

© 2015
P a g e | 13
Recovery
The RECOVERY dimension is an estimate of the time until a property owner or tenant is able to enter
and use the building for its basic intended functions.
A RECOVERY rating represents a minimum timeframe to carry out needed repair and to remove
major safety hazards and obstacles to occupancy and use. This rating does not address several other
factors that can delay the time to regain function, including but not limited to: the condition of external
infrastructure (e.g. utilities, transportation) that provide access and services to the building; damage
or the post-event state of building contents; or the condition of adjacent buildings.
The complexity and time needed to restore a building to usable condition can increase quickly in
relation to the degree of damage. Delays in design, financing, and construction may include time until
arrival of special-order equipment or materials, increased prices, a lack of available local design
professionals or contractors in a community where many buildings have been damaged, and longer
than usual permitting and inspection wait times. Separately, these factors can be estimated and
reported, but the actual total time impact of these factors is highly uncertain.
Recovery Rating
Immediately to days
Expected performance will likely result in people being able to quickly re-enter
***** and resume basic functionality of the building from immediately to a few days,
excluding external factors.
Within days to weeks

**** Expected performance may result in delay of basic functionality for days to
weeks, excluding external factors.
Within weeks to months

*** Expected performance may result in delay of basic functionality for weeks to
months, excluding external factors.
Within months to a year

** Expected performance may result in delay of basic functionality for months to a
year.
More than one year

* Expected performance may result in delay of basic functionality for at least one
year or more.
Not Evaluated
NE Time to regain basic function has not been evaluated.

© 2015
P a g e | 14
Underlying Evaluation Methodologies

The Rating System is not itself an evaluation methodology, and it does not replace any
methodologies currently used to evaluate buildings. Rather, the rating system is a set of definitions
and procedures by which the results of separate, or underlying, evaluations may be translated into
consistent terms.
For earthquake hazards, the USRC has approved for use the ASCE 41-13 and the FEMA P-58
evaluation methodologies described in Appendices D and E. A translation matrix has been developed
to convert evaluations using either of these methodologies into a Rating (Section 3.6).
Seismic Hazard Level

The ratings correspond to the average performance of a building with the characteristics of the
building under consideration given a single earthquake causing ground shaking at the site of the
building with approximately a 475 year average return period or a 10% probability of being exceeded
in a 50 year period.
Rating Scope
Ratings DO consider the performance of:
 Structural components
 Nonstructural components other than contents
 Most fixed equipment
 Non-building structures associated with and immediately adjacent to the building
 Geologic conditions within the building lot.
Ratings DO NOT consider the performance of:

 Utilities or infrastructure outside the building footprint or the condition of adjacent buildings.
 Most building contents routinely supplied or removed when tenants change
 Geologic conditions outside the building lot
 Full restoration of all intended functions and operations
Time Limit on a Rating

A Transaction Rating is valid for five years from the time it is issued or the effective date of any
occurrence noted below that could affect the Rating, whichever is sooner.
A Verified Rating must be re-registered every five years by the owner. Prior to the renewal date, a
registration update must be submitted, including a description of any alterations that have occurred
in the building since issuance of the Rating or the prior renewal. A registration update does not
necessarily require a new evaluation or Rating unless there is the occurrence of an event noted
below that could affect the previously issued Rating.
Continued validity of either Rating could be affected at any time with or without the knowledge of the
building owner or the USRC. The following is a non-exhaustive list of occurrences that could require
re-rating:
© 2015
P a g e | 15
 Any major alteration of the building, including any alteration that affects the building mass,
structural system, or nonstructural components
 Building damage (e.g. earthquake, fire, corrosion) or significant deferred maintenance
 Advances in science or engineering, including but not limited to lessons learned in natural
hazards occurring subsequent to the issuance of the rating.
Translating the underlying evaluation

The heart of the rating process is the translation of underlying evaluation results into the three-
dimension Rating. While the ideas embodied in the dimensions and definitions may be used informally
to describe earthquake performance, formal Ratings shall be derived only with an approved USRC
translation procedure for the underlying evaluation methodology. In general, the translation procedure
for any evaluation methodology will respect the eligibility limits, the required scope of work, and the
performance assumptions and descriptions given by the methodology itself.
The dimensions and definitions used by the USRC may differ in specific wording from those contained
in the original underlying evaluation methodology, however the user is to apply a direct translation
from the USRC Rating System. The translation from each methodology to a USRC Rating is found in
the description of each approved methodology: Appendix D for the use of ASCE 31 and 41 procedures
and Appendix E for the use of FEMA P58 procedures. If other underlying evaluation methodologies
are developed and approved by the USRC, translation processes will be developed for those
methodologies as well.
The Rating Request Submission

The requirements for a rating submittal include an executive summary and a submittal as detailed in
Sections 4.1 and 4.2. The CRP and the owner will receive a rating certificate as discussed in Section
4.3 and shown in Appendix A.
Executive Summary of the Rating Application

When submitting a Rating application to the USRC Portal website (www.usrc-portal.org), the CRP
shall use the submittal described in Section 4.2. The format of the executive summary is intended as
a cover sheet and is available to be downloaded from the USRC Portal (www.usrc-portal.org).
An executive summary includes the following:

 A building identifier. This can be the street address, the client's name for the building, or
any designation that uniquely identifies the building being rated. Once the project has been
submitted, a unique USRC rating ID # will be assigned to the project for tracking and
identification purposes.
 Basic building data, year built, year(s) remodeled, original design code.
 The three-part rating requested by the CRP, showing each rating dimension and the
symbolic rating (the stars or "NE" for Not Evaluated) for each dimension. It is important that
each dimension — Safety, Damage, and Recovery — be shown with its own rating, as
opposed to showing a single rating for the whole building or for all three dimensions
together.
© 2015
P a g e | 16
 The USRC CRP’s current professional license seal, which should show the engineer's
name and license number.
 The USRC CRP’s signature.
 The date of the signature and seal, which may be taken as the effective date of the rating.
 The underlying methodology used to derive each dimension's rating.
 Identify which rating type is being requested, either a Transaction Rating or a Verified
Rating.
Submittal
The submittal represents the minimum amount of information that a CRP will deliver to the USRC via
the USRC Portal website (www.usrc-portal.org) for both a Verified and Transaction Rating. The
submittal will include all of the following:
 An executive summary submittal as described in Section 4.1
 A list of all documents submitted for review including related drawings, evaluation reports,
summaries and other supporting documentation
 A description and documentation of any site visits performed
 Building design information, including the original design code and edition, a history of any
significant structural alterations, and past and current use and occupancy
 Description of the seismic force-resisting system, the gravity force-resisting system, and
the foundation
 Submittal of geotechnical reports and site seismicity parameters including time histories if
they were used in the FEMA P-58 evaluation
 Submittal of the input parameters to an FEMA P-58 evaluation including the drifts and floor
accelerations if they were used in the evaluation
 Liquefaction and/or landslide/slope stability reports, if any were performed
 Key deficiencies identified by the evaluation
 The translation to the Rating. This is a report showing how the Rating was derived from
the underlying evaluation methodology. This will normally take the form of a copy of the
applicable procedures from the Evaluation Methodology utilized.
 The underlying evaluation report. The format and content of the underlying evaluation
report will vary with each methodology. In general, the report must be sufficient to show
how its results were produced and where the judgment of the evaluating engineer, if any,
was applied. A summary of the underlying evaluation showing the results that will be used
as inputs to the Rating translation procedure.
USRC Rating Certificates

The USRC will issue formal rating certificates separately for Transaction and Verified Ratings. Drafts
of these certificates are provided in Appendix A and include the following information:
 Building and Owner identification
 Rating and its definitions
 Registration renewal date by owner – every 5 years for Verified Rating
 Expiration date of 5 years for Transaction Rating
 Disclaimer
 Level of technical review

© 2015
P a g e | 17
References
Almufti, I., and Willford, M. (2013). REDiTM Rating System, Resilience-based Earthquake Design
Initiative for the Next Generation of Buildings, Version 1.0, October, Arup
ASCE (2003). Seismic Evaluation of Existing Buildings (ASCE/SEI 31-03), American Society of Civil
Engineers, Reston, VA
ASCE (2006). Seismic Rehabilitation of Existing Buildings (ASCE/SEI 41-06), American Society of
Civil Engineers, Reston, VA
ASCE (2010). Minimum design loads for buildings and other structures, (ASCE/SEI 7-10), American
Society of Civil Engineers, Reston, VA
SEAOC (2012). “ASCE 41-13: Seismic Evaluation and Retrofit of Existing Buildings.” Proceedings of
the SEAOC 2012 Convention Proceedings), Structural Engineers Association of California,
Sacramento, CA
ASTM (1999). E2026-99 Standard Guide for the Estimation of Building Damageability in
Earthquakes, American Society for Testing and Materials
ATC (2011). “FEMA P-807: Proceedings for a Workshop on a Rating System for the Earthquake
Performance of Buildings,” Workshop Proceedings, May 2011, prepared for the Federal Emergency
Management Agency, Applied Technology Council, Redwood City, CA
Bonowitz, D. (2011). "Resilience Criteria for Seismic Evaluation of Existing Buildings," August 5, 2011
Report to SEAONC, Structural Engineers Association of Northern California
FEMA (2002). Rapid Visual Screening of Buildings for Potential Seismic Hazards: A Handbook,
Second Edition, FEMA 154 Report, prepared by the Applied Technology Council for the Federal
Emergency Management Agency, Washington, DC
FEMA (2012) Seismic Performance Assessment of Buildings, Methodology and Implementation,
FEMA P-58 Report, prepared by the Applied Technology Council for the Federal Emergency
Management Agency, Washington, DC
FEMA (2015). Rapid Visual Screening of Buildings for Potential Seismic Hazards: A Handbook, Third
Edition, FEMA 154 Report, prepared by the Applied Technology Council for the Federal Emergency
Management Agency, Washington, DC
ICC (2012). International Existing Building Code, International Code Council, Washington, DC
SEAONC Existing Buildings Committee, Building Ratings Subcommittee (2009). "Report Cards for
Buildings: A Proposed Rating System for Earthquake Performance," ATC&SEI Conference on
Improving the Seismic Performance of Existing Buildings and Other Structures, San Francisco, pp.
9-11.
SEAONC Existing Buildings Committee, Building Ratings Subcommittee (2011). "SEAONC Rating
System for the Expected Earthquake Performance of Buildings," SEAOC 2011 Convention
Proceedings, Structural Engineers Association of California, Sacramento, CA
SEAONC Existing Buildings Committee, Building Ratings Subcommittee (2012) “Earthquake
Performance Rating System: Translating ASCE 31-03," SEAOC 2012 Convention Proceedings,
Structural Engineers Association of California, Sacramento, CA

© 2015
APPENDICES

© 2015
Page |1
APPENDIX A
RATING CERTIFICATES
Introduction
The following images represent sample versions of both the Transaction Rating and Verified Rating
certificates that will be issued to owners who receive ratings from the USRC. Unauthorized use,
distribution, or duplication of the certificates, logos or other USRC trademarked material is prohibited.
Display or use of the Transaction Rating certificate is subject to the terms and conditions contained
within the certificate and in this document. The Verified Rating certificate may be publically displayed
or used for marketing and promotional materials, subject to the terms and conditions contained within
the certificate and in this document.
Terms and Conditions

USRC trademarks and logos are the exclusive property of USRC. Use of the USRC Logo is authorized
by the U.S. Resiliency Council on a case-by case basis through written request and thorough review
of intent for usage. The Authorized User acknowledges that the ownership of all rights to the USRC
trademarks and logos remains with USRC. USRC may at its absolute discretion, restrict, amend or
cancel its authorization to use or display its trademarks and logos, by written notice to the Authorized
User, who shall within fourteen days, comply with the restrictions, modifications or cancelation.
Authorized Users shall only use or display the trademark and logos as defined by these USRC Terms
and Conditions. The logo may be used only in the form provided by the USRC to the Authorized
User. The logo may not be placed on product packaging, ads, or be used as a visual reference to
USRC rating claims in product literature. For example, the logo cannot be placed next to text that
says "Building A likely to receive X stars under the USRC Rating System." The logo may be placed
on an approved web site as a link to the USRC's web home page (www.usrc.org). It may not be used
to link to other pages on the Web site or to link to any other third party web sites. When used in print,
the logo shall be accompanied by the URL of the USRC website. Literature in which this logo appears
must contain the following acknowledgement: " 'USRC' and related logo is a trademark owned by the
U.S. Resiliency Council and is used by permission."
The logo shall not appear in any placement, online or in print, which could be construed to imply that
the USRC endorses or approves any activity, product or organization that is not explicitly endorsed
or approved by the USRC.
Appendix A U.S. Resiliency Council

© 2015
Page |2

© 2015
Page |3

© 2015
Page |4

© 2015
Page |5

© 2015
APPENDIX B
CERTIFICATION, DISCIPLINE, AND
APPEALS POLICIES
Certification, Discipline, and Appeals Policies ( C D A P ) Version 1.1
1 Introduction 1
2 Certification 1
2.1 Certification for Certified Rating Professionals (CRP) 1
2.2 Certification for Certified Rating Reviewer (CRR) 3
2.3 Certification Status 3
2.4 Certification Review Process 4

3 Discipline 4
3.1 The Discipline Committee 5
3.2 Discipline Process 5

4 Appeals of certification denial or disciplinary action 6
5 Appeals of ratings 6
Appendix B U.S. Resiliency Council

© 2015
Page |1
Introduction
This Certification, Discipline, and Appeals Policy (CDAP) covers USRC policies for:
 certification of professionals, as qualified, to prepare and submit building evaluations to
receive a USRC rating and to review those evaluations on behalf of the USRC;
 discipline of USRC certified professionals with respect to adherence to USRC policies only;
and
 appeals of denial of certification or disciplinary actions
This manual has been prepared by USRC committees and approved by the USRC Board of
Directors. This document will undergo updates, revisions and expansion as the USRC determines
necessary. Users of this document should regularly check the USRC website (www.usrc.org) for
updates.
Certification
Two categories of certification have been established by the USRC: Certified Rating Professional
(CRP) and Certified Rating Reviewer (CRR). Additional categories, such as for professionals certified
to rate or review only specific building types (e.g. residential) may be established in the future.
CRP’s and CRR’s are eligible to develop or review building evaluations submitted for a USRC building
rating, subject to the limitations and expectations described herein.
Certification for Certified Rating Professionals (CRP)

Applicants to be a CRP must first register with the USRC to be able to access and submit an
application to the USRC using the electronic form provided by the USRC on its web portal (www.usrc-
portal.org). Applicants must fill out all portions of the application; missing information may delay
review of the application or result in denial of certification.
The cost to become a USRC Certified Rating Professional is $600 for individuals with a $100 annual
renewal fee. Individual and corporate members enjoy discounts on certification application fees. The
application fee includes a one year individual membership in the USRC and the cost of attending two
required web based seminars on the two USRC approved methodologies for seismic evaluations –
ASCE 41 and FEMA P58. Applicants will submit the application fee on-line through the USRC
website. The fee is nonrefundable. The requirements to become a USRC Certified Rating
Professional are listed below.
The following sections are contained in the CRP application and resume, which should not exceed 3
pages:
1. Certification Scope (All Buildings or Residential (SFR and 1-4 units)
2. Postsecondary engineering education: Institution name, years attended, major(s),
degree(s) conferred
3. Professional engineering licenses. A successful applicant will be expected to have a
professional engineering license that emphasizes civil or structural engineering. For each
© 2015
Page |2
license, the applicant will be expected to answer and explain affirmative responses to the
following questions:
4. Is this license inactive (Yes/No)
5. Has this license ever been revoked (Yes/No)
6. Has any disciplinary action ever been taking regarding this license (Yes/No)
7. Experience Record. A successful application will demonstrate the following:
o 5 years minimum engineering experience following the date they obtained
professional licensure (Civil Engineer, Professional Engineer, etc.).
o Applicant shall describe and demonstrate qualifying examples of worked performed in

the design, retrofit and/or evaluation of new and existing buildings, specifically related
to natural hazards, different building types, and using evaluation methodologies
adopted by the US Resiliency Council (USRC). See the USRC website, www.usrc.org,
or this Rating Implementation Manual for technical methodologies which the USRC
has adopted. Examples cited should be detailed enough to describe the hazard,
building type, methodology used and level of analysis performed (e.g. static. dynamic,
linear, non- linear).
8. Supplementary questions. As part of the application process, the applicant will provide a
resume with additional information that will be helpful in assessing the applicant’s
qualifications to become a Certified Rating Professional. This information includes:
o Membership in professional organizations
o Other experience in assessing building performance before or after a disaster
o Publications and presentations
o Other relevant professional experience
o List of approved USRC training courses taken. As of the current date of this document,
no USRC training courses have been developed. Once courses have been developed,
new applicants will be required to take at least one course following certification and
prior to submitting their first building evaluation, and existing CRP’s will be expected
to take an approved course before their first USRC certification renewal.
9. Professional references. Applicants will be expected to submit three references from
professional colleagues or supervisors who are familiar with the applicant’s work and
professional character. Forms will be emailed to the references by the USRC. References will
complete the reference form and return them to the USRC via email. References may not
be related to the applicant and will be expected to provide information regarding the
applicant including:
o References’ Contact information, including licensure
o Professional relationship with the applicant
o Number of years working with or supervising the applicant.
o Specific examples of the work performed by the applicant related to specific natural
hazards, building types, and evaluation methodologies.
10. USRC Terms and Agreement Requirements: All applicants will be expected to agree to
adhere to the USRC terms and conditions listed or referenced in the application. Terms
and conditions can be viewed on the USRC website. If the applicant does not specifically
agree to the USRC terms and conditions, the application will not be considered by the
USRC. Among the terms and conditions are:

© 2015
Page |3
o Many state boards of professional licensing have wording similar to the following: "A
licensed professional engineer shall practice and perform engineering work only in the
field or fields in which he/she is by education and experience fully competent and
proficient.” USRC Certified Rating Professionals are solely responsible for adhering to
codes of professional practice and ethics stipulated by the licensing boards of the
states in which they practice. The USRC makes no warranty of the work developed
by the Certified Rating Professional, and does not indemnify the Certified Rating
Professional for any work performed. Certified Rating Professionals shall agree to
indemnify the USRC for all worked performed by the Certified Rating Professional and
submitted to the USRC.
o The applicant agrees that all decision on appeals and disciplinary actions are at the
discretion of the USRC and are final.
Certification for Certified Rating Reviewer (CRR)

Applicants to be a CRR must first register with the USRC to be able to access and submit an
application to the USRC using the electronic form provided by the USRC on its web portal. Applicants
must fill out all portions of the application; missing information may delay review of the application or
result in denial of certification.
In addition to the requirements to be a CRP, a USRC Certified Rating Reviewer is expected to have
additional qualifications as described below.
1. Professional engineering licenses. A successful applicant will be expected to have the
highest professional engineering licensure offered in the state in which they practice. For
example, in California, the highest professional engineering licensure is the designation of
“Structural Engineer,” while in Texas there is no higher designation than the standard
“Professional Engineer.” In states that offer a Structural Engineer designation 5 years
minimum qualifying experience beyond the date of licensure is required, or, in lieu of that
designation an applicant may have a combination of a Professional Engineering License, a
PhD in structural or civil engineering and 5 years minimum qualifying experience. In states
with no Structural Engineering designation, a Professional Engineering license and a
minimum of 10 years of experience is required.
2. Experience Record. It is the intent that the USRC will assign Reviewers to review building
evaluations based on their familiarity and experience in reviewing similar buildings and
hazards. A successful applicant will list building types, hazards and methodologies which
the applicant believes he/she is qualified to review, and demonstrate specific experience in
reviewing the design and/or evaluation of such buildings and hazards.
Application fees, membership discounts, and annual renewal fees are the same as for Certified
Rating Professionals. Reviewers will be compensated by the USRC at the rate of $200 per hour,
subject to USRC Terms and Conditions
Certification Status
The certification status of a prospective, current or former CRP or CRR shall be classified as either:
Applicant, Active, Lapsed, Inactive or Revoked. Only professionals with an Active Certification are
allowed to submit building evaluations to receive a USRC rating or to review rating evaluations.
© 2015
Page |4
Certification will remain active contingent upon: the renewal through submission of an annual fee,
evidence of continuing education as required by policies, and evidence of having performed ratings
in the previous year. To allow for the startup of the USRC, the requirement for having performed
ratings in the previous year may be waived at the discretion of the USRC.
Professionals who do not renew their certification by the anniversary of their original certification will
be considered to have a Lapsed Certification. Professionals with lapsed certification may submit a
form along with prescribed fees to reactivate certification within 90 days of becoming lapsed.
Reactivation will normally occur without a formal review of the applicant.
A professional with a lapsed certification older than 90 days shall be considered Inactive.
Professionals with an Inactive Certification may submit a form to reactivate certification, along with
prescribed fees. Reactivation will require a formal review by the USRC Certification Committee.
A professional may have their certification revoked according to Section 3 – Discipline. Professionals
with a Revoked Certification must submit a new application for certification, along with prescribed
fees, which will be reviewed by the USRC Certification Committee.
Certification Review Process

The USRC Certification Committee shall be responsible for approving the certification of Certified
Rating Professionals and Certified Rating Reviewers. Applications for certification either as a CRP
or a CRR shall be reviewed by USRC staff. Minor discrepancies in an application may be resolved
by the applicant upon notification by USRC staff. Once an application is deemed complete it shall be
forwarded to the Certification Committee.
The Certification Committee will review each application, considering completeness, conformance
to expectations of the application and the references received. Committee members will endeavor to
complete an application review within 45 days of receiving all required information, either by
approving or rejecting the candidate. All applications shall be considered confidential and information
will not be shared outside the Committee. Successful candidates will be approved by a majority of
voting members. The USRC will notify the applicant in writing of the approval or rejection of
certification. If the application is rejected, reasons for the rejection will be provided. Application fees
are non-refundable.
Discipline
Discipline may be considered under the following circumstances: if a CRP’s certification has lapsed
or is inactive, and the professional submits a building evaluation for a rating; the USRC is made
aware that a CRP or CRR may have misrepresented him or herself on their certification application;
or a written complaint is lodged with the USRC about the performance of a CRP or a CRR with
respect to USRC policies.
The first time a CRP with a lapsed or inactive certification submits a building for evaluation, the USRC
shall warn the professional and notify the owner applicant that the rating application will not be
considered until the professional's certification becomes active. The second time a CRP with a lapsed
or inactive certification submits a building for evaluation, the USRC shall revoke the professional’s
certification, and notify the owner applicant that the application has been disqualified.
© 2015
Page |5
Disciplinary action shall be warranted in the following cases: if the CRP or CRR has misrepresented
him or herself on their application for certification; or if the professional has been found to have
violated the USRC policy of conduct.
Disciplinary action by the USRC will not be reported to state licensing boards and is not meant to
affect the engineer’s ability to practice engineering as his or her license permits.
The Discipline Committee

The Discipline Committee shall consist of 3 licensed engineers and 3 non-engineering professionals
within the resiliency industry. The USRC Executive Director shall serve as an ex- officio non-voting
member of the committee.
Discipline Process
If the USRC receives a written complaint about a certified professional, either from an individual or
an entity, the Executive Director and one other committee member will review it and determine
whether the complaint warrants review by the entire committee, or if it is generally without merit. The
USRC shall forward complaints warranting review by the full committee to each committee member.
Committee members will endeavor to complete a disciplinary review within 60 days.
Two committee members will be selected to contact the entity or individual filing the complaint, and
separately, the professional against whom the complaint was filed, to request information regarding
the complaint for consideration by the Discipline Committee.
The committee will meet by conference call to discuss the complaint and vote on disciplinary action.
All information with respect to disciplinary action shall be considered confidential, and information will
not be shared by committee members with anyone, except as required by law.
At least four committee members must agree on the disciplinary action to be taken against the
professional. Disciplinary action may consist either of a warning or revocation of certification.
Professionals who have been disciplined will be notified by the USRC along with the reasons for the
disciplinary action. Disciplinary action will take effect 15 days after the professional has been notified
unless an appeal is made. In the event of an appeal, disciplinary action shall be tabled until the
appeal is resolved.
Professionals who have had their certification revoked will be removed from the active list of certified
professionals maintained by the USRC and which is posted on the USRC website. A confidential list
of engineers with a revoked certification will be maintained by the USRC.
If a professional's certification is revoked, building evaluations currently pending before the USRC
that have been submitted by the professional will be rejected.

© 2015
Page |6
Appeals of certification denial or disciplinary

action
This section refers only to appeals of certification denial or of disciplinary action. Appeals of a rating
provided by the USRC for a building evaluation is described in Section 5. An applicant whose
certification application has been denied, or a CRP or CRR who has been disciplined by the USRC,
shall have 15 business days to request an appeal from the date they are notified by the USRC. The
appeal shall be made in writing to the USRC Executive Director. The reasons for the appeal shall be
clearly stated in the appeal letter.
An Appeals Committee consisting of the Executive Director, one member of the Certification or
Discipline Committees (whichever is not the subject of the appeal) and one USRC Board member
shall consider appeals. The Appeals Committee shall review the appeal, and conduct independent
phone conversations with the appellant and one member of the committee that is the subject of the
appeal, to gather further information.
The Appeals Committee shall vote to either uphold or deny the appeal. A majority vote is required.
The USRC will notify the appellant of its decision within 15 business days of the appeal. The decision
of the Appeals Committee is final.
Appeals of ratings
This section is under development.

© 2015
APPENDIX C
RATING REVIEW PROCEDURES
1 Introduction 1
2 Levels of Technical Review 1
2.1 Transaction Rating 1
2.2 Verified Rating 1

3 Technical Review 2
3.1 Basic Review for Both Methodologies 2
3.2 ASCE 31 Evaluation 2
3.3 FEMA P58 Evaluation 2

4 Elevated Review 2
4.1 Prior Peer Review 3
4.2 ASCE 31 Evaluation 3
4.3 FEMA P58 Evaluation 3

5 Technical Reviewer’s Report 3
6 FEMA P58 Evaluation review checklist 4
Appendix C U.S. Resiliency Council

© 2015
Page |1
Introduction
The evaluation procedures used to determine the USRC Transaction and Verified Building Ratings
performed by a USRC Certified Rating Professional (CRP) are subject to an independent Technical
Review, and in some cases, an Elevated Review by a USRC Certified Rating Reviewer (CRR). The
review is an essential part of the building rating system and helps to ensure that an appropriate and
consistent standard of care is adhered to for all building performance assessments.
Reviews are intended to validate a rating and the appropriate application of rating system
methodologies, not to be a comprehensive re-verification of all criteria, analysis, design procedures
and calculations undertaken by the qualified USRC CRP. In cases where a project submittal has
undergone prior qualified peer reviews, the USRC Rating Review Committee (RRC) may waive
certain additional Elevated Technical Review requirements as noted herein.
The Technical Review will include a review of available construction documents, information on the
condition of the building, structural design criteria, analytical models and any reports prepared by the
CRP.
This manual has been prepared by USRC committees and approved by the USRC Board of
Directors. document that will undergo updates, revisions and expansion as the USRC determines
necessary. Users of the document should regularly check the USRC website (www.usrc.org) for
updates.
Levels of Technical Review

Transaction Rating
The first Transaction Rating from a CRP will be technically reviewed and then every 1 in 7
Transaction Ratings, randomly selected, will be subjected to a technical review.
If a serious discrepancy is found as a part of a technical review it will be referred to the Rating Review
Committee (RRC) for disposition. The RRC will have the authority to review prior ratings (at USRC
expense) and/or require technical review of up to the next 5 ratings from that CRP at the CRP’s
expense. If egregious gaming of the system is deemed to have occurred, the RRC may at its
discretion, refer the CRP to the Discipline Committee for loss of their Certification subject to USRC
policies on disciplinary action and appeals.
Verified Rating
All Verified Ratings will be technically reviewed. Those defined in Section 4 will be subjected to an
elevated review.

© 2015
Page |2
Technical Review
As a minimum, the following design information will be assessed as part of a Technical Review:
Basic Review for Both Methodologies

 The building description (gravity framing system, building cladding, building use), including
number of stories, plan dimensions, and configurations
 The configuration and detailing of the seismic force resisting system
 The building site characteristics, geotechnical report including geological hazards
 Review of building drawings or information of equal utility
 Comparison of the rating with similar buildings in the USRC database
ASCE 31 Evaluation
 Photographs of the building plus date of site visit
 Review of Tier 1 check list items
 Review of check list items where engineering judgement or a Tier 2 check was used to
change a non-compliant item to compliant
 Review of the translation from the checklist to the rating Review of Tier 1 check list items
FEMA P58 Evaluation

 FEMA P-58 Input/Analysis Items (See list in table of Section 6).
Elevated Review
An elevated (more detailed) technical review of the evaluation methodology, associated calculations
and rating translation will be required for the following buildings noted below for all Verified Ratings.
Many of these projects may have had a code or owner mandated peer review. If key components of
a USRC elevated review have been peer reviewed prior to the Rating submittal, the USRC Rating
Review Committee (RRC) may move the project from an Elevated Review into the Technical Review
category. Buildings requiring an elevated review are:
 Buildings with a Rating of 4 or 5 stars in any dimension
 Buildings defined by current code level Risk Category Type III and IV
 Vulnerable building types that have a three star or greater Safety rating
o Unreinforced masonry
o Reinforced concrete buildings designed pre-1985 UBC
o Soft / Weak Story Buildings as defined by ASCE 31 standard
o Steel Moment Frame Buildings designed pre-2000, unless the pre-Northridge
connection issue has been addressed
o Other known non-ductile framed systems
Buildings that have a three star or greater Safety rating with significant geologic site hazards
as determined from USGS or CDMG maps, or site-specific geotechnical investigations

© 2015
Page |3
 Liquefaction
 Slope Failure
 Surface Fault Rupture
Other unusual systems defined as any building that is not one of the common building types
defined in ASCE 41-13 or would not qualify to be evaluated using the Tier 1 procedure in
ASCE 41-13.
The following items will be included as part of an Elevated Review in addition to those requirements
for a Technical Review.
Prior Peer Review

If all of the following key components have been peer reviewed prior to the Rating submittal, the
USRC Rating Review Committee (RRC) may move the project from an Elevated Technical Review
into the Technical Review category. Sufficient documentation demonstrating the extent of prior peer
review shall be included in the submittal.
 Review of the drifts and floor accelerations from analytical models (if response history
analysis used)
 Review of the site specific hazard report and a comparison with USGS spectra (if site-
specific done)
 Review of time histories (if response history analysis used)
 Review of liquefaction report and associated analyses (if applicable)
 Review of landslide/slope stability report and associated analyses (if applicable)
ASCE 31 Evaluation
Review of Technical Review items plus the following:
 Review of building drawings and geotechnical reports or information of equivalent utility
 Detailed review of key Tier 2 & 3 ASCE 41 checks to resolve non-compliant items
 Review of the translation and where engineering judgement was used
FEMA P58 Evaluation

Review of Technical Review items plus the following:
 FEMA P-58 Input/Analysis Items (See spreadsheet list). All colored cells on the
spreadsheet
 Other elevated review triggers
Technical Reviewer’s Report

The certified reviewer shall prepare a brief standardized report that covers the review performed and
the appropriateness of the submitted rating. The format of this report is under development.

© 2015
Page |4
FEMA P58 Evaluation review checklist

USRC Review Requirements for P-58 Analyses (rough draft for review and comment)
Draft by C.B. Haselton and D. Cook (HB-Risk employee)
Last Updated: July 6, 2015
Legend:
 Item needs no review.
Item needs only basic review (needs review when default values are overridden,
Tech Review
need to ensure that the inputs are in agreement with the building, etc.).
Item needs moderate review.
Item needs careful review.
* Elevated review required.
Note: These are technical review requirements specific to the FEMA P-58 Methodology and there
may be additional requirements laid on top of these by the overall USRC process. For example, the
overall USRC procedure may require that Risk Category III-IV buildings have an elevated review, but
this is more an administrative decision that a technical requirements specific to the FEMA P-58
procedure, so this would not be marked as requiring elevated review in this file).
Note: This presumes that 4-5 star buildings will already require elevated review; if this does not end
up being the case, then please see the more detailed table for more information.
Basic Building and Site Information:
FEMA P-58 Input/Analysis Item

Building structural system type
Design year / Code year
Number of stories
Story height
Total building square footage
Building occupancy type
Risk Category
Building replacement cost (if overwritten; if the P-58 subcommittee creates default
values to use here)
Total loss threshold
Regional cost multiplier
Date cost multiplier
-- Effective Periods (see site hazard and simplified method sections)

© 2015
Page |5
Analysis Options:

Number of Realizations
Site Hazards:

Period for hazard analysis (just to ensure consistency with use in Simplified Method,
not way off from building period).
Site Class (if USGS default is overridden)
 Site Hazard Curve: USGS default option
Site Hazard Curve: User-input hazard option (compare to USGS curve) (note that
probably already peer reviewed and limited to code 80%; likely require this 80% cap
without elevated review).
Structural Responses:

Simplified Method Option: Effective building periods
Simplified Method Option: Vy (important for accel.)
Simplified Method Option: DeltaY (important for residual)
 Simplified Method Option: Drift/PFA/Residual responses
Any handling of irregularities in the simplified responses predictions
* RHA Option: Ground motion selection and scaling
* RHA Option: Modeling for the RHA
* RHA Option: Sanity check of structural responses
Collapse Capacity and Behavior, and Residual Drift Capacity:

FEMA P-154 Checklist
 Collapse fragility curve (comes from FEMA P-154, so only if overwritten)
 Collapse modes (will be made an input, but should some from FEMA P-154)
Building population model (will be made an input, only needs review is differs from P-

58 defaults)
 Building residual drift capacity (median and beta)

© 2015
Page |6
Building Structural and Non-Structural Components:

Building Contents: Building information inputs that are used for the pre-populations.
Building Contents: Auto-populated values
Building Contents: Input capacities for non-structural components requiring inputs
(computed using ASCE7 Chp. 13)
Building Contents: User-overrides to default component types and quantities
* Completely new user-defined fragilities (if done)

© 2015
APPENDIX D
ASCE 31 EVALUATION METHODOLOGY
USRC Disclaimer
The Structural Engineers Association of Northern California (SEAONC) granted the USRC
permission to use these documents and definitions (SEAONC EBC,BRS 2009, 2011 and 2012) in
the development of a USRC Rating System. Any differences between this USRC document and
related SEAONC documents are solely the work of the USRC and do not reflect any opinion,
endorsement, or approval by SEAONC.
The USRC assumes responsibility for maintaining and updating the USRC translation matrix, derived
originally from SEAONC documents and definitions modified by the USRC where deemed
appropriate, that serves as the basis for all USRC ratings related to earthquakes.
The Dimensions and Definitions used by the USRC may differ in specific wording from those
contained in the SEAONC documents, however the user will apply a direct translation from the
adopted USRC translation matrix to the USRC Rating System as described below:
SEAONC EPRS USRC Rating SEAONC EPRS

Dimension Dimension Star Rating USRC Rating
5 star 4 star*
4 star 4 star
3 star 3 star
Safety Safety
2 star 2 star
1 star 1 star
5 star ** See below
4 star 4 star
3 star 3 star
Repair Cost Damage
2 star 2 star
1 star 1 star
5 star ** See below
4 star 4 star
Recovery Recovery 3 star 3 star
2 star 2 star
1 star 1 star
* A more advanced analysis than one based on ASCE 31 or 41 Tier 1/2 procedures is necessary to
achieve a USRC 5-star safety rating. Refer to Appendix E, FEMA 58 Evaluation Methodology.
** SEAONC EPRS does not permit a 5-star damage or recovery rating based on ASCE 31 procedures
alone. Refer to Appendix E, FEMA 58 Evaluation Methodology for additional information on
obtaining a 5-star rating for these dimensions.
The SEAONC EPRS utilizes ASCE 31 to develop ratings across all three dimensions. The estimate
of repair cost may be conservative because the EPRS defaulted to upper bound damage values
from a calibration study using ST-RISK. The engineer developing a USRC Rating may opt to
perform a custom repair cost evaluation using either ST-RISK, HAZUS or FEMA P58 and
substitute the USRC repair cost dimension rating with more building specific values.
Appendix D U.S. Resiliency Council
© 2015
EARTHQUAKE PERFORMANCE RATING SYSTEM
ASCE 31 TRANSLATION PROCEDURE
Prepared by
The Building Ratings Committee
A sub-committee of the Existing Buildings Committee of
The Structural Engineers Association of Northern California
March 22, 2015

EPRS: ASCE 31 Translation Procedure
Disclaimer
SEAONC makes the Earthquake Performance Rating System (EPRS) and this Translation Procedure
available for use by anyone, subject to any and all regulations regarding the practice of engineering,
architecture, or other professions. SEAONC does not produce, review, or approve ratings developed
with the EPRS. The EPRS user assumes all risk and responsibility for use of the EPRS. SEAONC assumes no
responsibility for the use of the EPRS by anyone for any purpose.
Copyright
Copyright © 2014 by the Structural Engineers Association of Northern California. All rights reserved.
License to reproduce, unaltered, the worksheets and tables presented herein for purposes of presenting
an EPRS rating is hereby granted.
Acknowledgments
This User’s Guide was written by members of SEAONC’s Building Ratings Committee (BRC), as a
subcommittee of the SEAONC Existing Buildings Committee.
Existing Buildings Committee Chairs (since inception of BRC)

David Ojala, Chair 2014-2015
Brian McDonald, Chair 2012-2013
Marko Schotanus, Chair 2010-2012
Colin Blaney, Chair 2008-2010
Building Ratings Committee

EPRS: ASCE 31 Translation Procedure Contributors
Marguerite Bello, Chair 2015, Co-Chair 2011 to 2014
Ron Mayes, Co-Chair 2008 to 2014
Doug Hohbach, Co-Chair 2010 to 2011
Mathew Bittleston
Stephen Bono
David Bonowitz
Craig Goings
David McCormick
Evan Reis
The committee acknowledges the following Building Rating Committee members for their comments,
suggestions and assistance:
Colin Blaney
Craig Cole
Jon Heintz
Brian McDonald
David Ojala
Marko Schotanus
Kate Stillwell, Co-Chair 2008 to 2010
SEAONC i March 22,

2015
The committee also acknowledges the SEAONC Board for their support and endorsement of BRC since
its inception.
SEAONC ii March 22,

2015
Contents
1. Introduction and General Instructions
1.1. Sequence Loads ..........................................................................................................1
1.2. ASCE 31 Basis ..............................................................................................................1
1.3. Applying Judgment to ASCE 31 Findings .....................................................................3
1.4. Presentation of Results ...............................................................................................4
References ......................................................................................................................................5
Translation Worksheet
Part 1. Eligibility and Due Diligence ...................................................................................1

Part 2. Safety ......................................................................................................................1
Part 3. Repair Cost Rating ..................................................................................................5
Part 4. Recovery Rating ......................................................................................................7
Part 5. Summary ............................................................................................................. 13
Table 2.1 ASCE 31 Compliance Required for Structural Safety Sub-rating ..................... 14
Table 2.2 ASCE 31 Geologic/Foundation Safety Sub-rating ............................................ 38
SEAONC iii March 22,

2015
1. Introduction and General Instructions

This publication provides a procedure for translating the findings of an “ASCE 31” (ASCE, 2003) seismic
evaluation into a three-part rating using the Earthquake Performance Rating System (EPRS). The EPRS is
described in a User’s Guide developed by the Building Ratings Committee and published by SEAONC
(SEAONC BRC, 2015).
Before applying the procedure, the rating engineer should be familiar with the EPRS, the rating process,
and the rating presentation guidelines, all of which are described in the EPRS User’s Guide. The intent
and background of certain instructions and judgments inherent in this procedure are further described
in the EPRS User’s Guide.
The translation procedure consists of general instructions given in this section together with specific
instructions given in worksheet form below. In addition to the instructions, tips and commentary are
given in italic text.
The translation procedure reflects some judgment by the BRC, as discussed in Section 1.2.
1.1 Sequence
The procedure worksheet has four main parts, each divided into several “lines,” plus a summary. In
general, the four parts should be completed in sequence, as later parts rely on earlier results.
Tip: The Repair Cost and Recovery Ratings rely on the Safety Rating, which can be limited by
unknown geologic site hazards (line 2.2) or by an incomplete nonstructural evaluation (line 2.3).
Along with overall eligibility (Part 1), check these sections first.
1.2 ASCE 31 Basis.

This translation procedure is based on the results of a seismic evaluation completed with the ASCE/SEI
31-03 standard (ASCE, 2003), cited here as “ASCE 31”. In general, the evaluation should be completed
before applying the translation procedure and should be completed following the provisions of ASCE 31
itself. This procedure presumes knowledge of ASCE 31, as well as a proper application of its provisions.
The following instructions either clarify the intent of ASCE 31 (consistent with ASCE 41-13) or make
distinctions necessary for characterization of ASCE 31 deficiencies in EPRS terms.
Commentary: This procedure was not developed for, and should not be used with, ASCE 31’s
predecessors, FEMA 310 and FEMA 178, except where they are cited for benchmarking by ASCE
31 Section 3.2. ASCE 31’s successor, ASCE 41-13, may be used with judgment to address specific
issues raised by the ASCE 31 evaluation, but the procedure has not been developed specifically to
fit ASCE 41-13.
This procedure reflects some judgment by the BRC in order to make distinctions that ASCE 31 does not
make itself. Examples:
 ASCE 31 does not distinguish Life Safety deficiencies related to global collapse from those
related to local collapse or falling hazards; this procedure makes that judgmental distinction in
order to assign 1-star, 2-star, and 3-star Safety Ratings.
SEAONC 1 March 22,

2015
 The procedure makes further judgmental distinctions between conditions assigned 4-star and 5-
star Safety Ratings.
 The procedure makes generally conservative assignments of Repair Cost Ratings, recognizing
that ASCE 31 does not explicitly address repair cost. See Worksheet line 3.2.
 The procedure makes broad judgments regarding the assignment of Recovery Ratings,
recognizing that ASCE 31’s use of “Immediate Occupancy” differs from the EPRS definitions of
Recovery rating levels. See Worksheet lines 4.1 through 4.3.
 The procedure includes substantial judgment in the assignment of Recovery Ratings based on
nonstructural performance and engages the rating engineer’s judgment in adjusting those
ratings. See Worksheet line 4.3.
1.2.1 Deficiency List
This procedure is based on the deficiency list resulting from an ASCE 31 evaluation. If only ASCE
31 Tier 1 is completed, the deficiency list is the list of checklist items marked Noncompliant (NC).
If ASCE 31 Tier 2 or Tier 3 is used, the deficiency list is the list of Tier 1 checklist items marked
NC, ignoring those items for which the corresponding Tier 2 or Tier 3 procedure is satisfied.
Tip: If Tier 2 procedures have resolved certain Tier 1 NC conditions, annotate the completed Tier
1 checklist itself to indicate the resolution. This will make the completed checklist easier to
review and the procedure Worksheet easier to apply.
1.2.2 Unknown Conditions
For purposes of deriving an EPRS rating, Unknown (U) conditions should be considered
equivalent to NC.
Commentary: ASCE 31 does not provide a “U” designation in its checklists. ASCE 41-13 does
provide this designation, recognizing the usefulness of tracking known non-compliance separate
from unknown conditions.
Tip: If unknown conditions are driving the rating, consider reporting the rating as “No Rating,” as
discussed in the EPRS User’s Guide. “No Rating” is the required outcome where the ASCE 31
evaluation is substantially incomplete (see Part 1).
1.2.3 Life Safety (LS) Only Evaluation
For purposes of deriving an EPRS rating, ASCE 31 scope items that are not evaluated, including
those not evaluated because ASCE 31 requires them only for Immediate Occupancy (IO)
evaluation, should be considered NC or U.
Commentary: With a few exceptions, compliance with ASCE 31 LS criteria is sufficient to merit a
4-star structural safety sub-rating and a 3-star nonstructural safety sub-rating. Repair Cost and
Recovery Ratings are more sensitive to the issues addressed by the IO evaluation criteria.
Tip: To achieve a higher Safety Rating, consider supplementing an LS-only evaluation with
evaluation of nonstructural items not normally required for Life Safety.
1.2.4 Hazard Level Adjustment
Since ASCE 31 uses a hazard level similar to that presumed by the EPRS, no adjustment of
evaluation results for seismic hazard level is needed.
Commentary: ASCE 31 uses the same hazard as the code for new construction, but it builds a 75
percent factor into its acceptance criteria.
SEAONC 2 March 22,

2015
1.2.5 Tier 1 LOAD PATH Item

The Tier 1 LOAD PATH item should be considered NC only due to an actual gap in the lateral load
path, not due to an inadequacy of strength, stiffness, or ductility in existing load path
components. Adequacy is considered in separate checklist items.
1.2.6 Nonstructural Checklist Items
Nonstructural checklist items should be considered C only when their attachments (braces,
supports, and connections) are suitable to the application and have complete load paths to
supporting structural members.
Commentary: This clarification is consistent with ASCE 41-13 Section 16.17.
1.3 Applying Judgment to ASCE 31 Findings

The EPRS accommodates some judgment on the part of the rating engineer, as follows:
1.3.1 Applied to Findings, Not to Ratings

Where applied, judgment is to be applied to specific ASCE 31 evaluation findings, not to the
resulting EPRS rating or sub-rating.
1.3.2 Annotation
Where applied, the ASCE 31 checklists, deficiency list, and supporting materials should be
annotated to show where and on what basis judgment has been applied.
1.3.3 Applied with building-specific knowledge

Judgment should only be applied by an engineer with building-specific knowledge.
Commentary: This procedure acknowledges that even though ASCE 31 is a standard written in
enforceable language, judgment is inherent in its application as it is in all engineering. The procedure
embodies judgment by the BRC to make distinctions that ASCE 31 does not make itself, as discussed in
Section 1.2. In addition, it acknowledges the role of judgment by the evaluating engineer, even explicitly
engaging the rating engineer’s judgment in some cases (see Worksheet line 4.3.2). This commentary
section offers some guidelines for the application of that judgment. Cases where judgment is expected to
apply include:
 Buildings in which rating-controlling deficiencies occur in just one or two places, as opposed to
buildings in which those deficiencies occur throughout the structure.
 Buildings in which rating-controlling deficiencies represent only minor non-compliance (for
example, a demand-capacity ratio just above 1.0), as opposed to buildings in which the
deficiencies are clearer and more severe.
The engineer is encouraged to perform a Tier 2 check before, or as a guide to, the application of
judgment.
Where judgment affects the Safety Rating, Repair Cost and Recovery Ratings can be affected as well,
since the latter two ratings rely in part on the Safety Rating.
Instruction 1.3.1 means that judgment should be applied during the ASCE 31 evaluation process or to
specific ASCE 31 deficiencies. It is not the intent that the engineer might derive, say, a 2-star Safety
SEAONC 3 March 22,

2015
Rating and then decide that a 3-star Safety Rating is more appropriate. Rather, the engineer should
identify the specific ASCE 31 deficiencies or unknown conditions that are leading to the 2-star rating and
then consider whether, for the particular building, those deficiencies are commensurate with the
definition of the derived rating. In other words, any adjustment to a rating or sub-rating should be
justified in terms of judgment regarding one or more specific deficiencies.
Instruction 1.3.2 means that wherever judgment is applied, the engineer should provide clear
explanation and thorough documentation within the ASCE 31 report that underlies the rating. Consider
two cases:
 Judgment might be applied, independent of the EPRS, to show that a NC condition should not be
considered a deficiency within the intent of ASCE 31 itself, and should be removed from the
deficiency list. In this case, the Tier 1 checklist should show C, not NC or U, and the rating should
proceed assuming a compliant condition.
 Because the EPRS makes more distinctions among deficiencies than ASCE 31 does itself,
judgment might be applied in a way that does not change the deficiency list but does affect the
rating. For example, consider a deficiency that would normally result in a 1-star Safety Rating. If
the engineer judges that the NC condition, in this particular building, could not lead to “death in
multiple or widespread locations” per the definition of 1-star Safety, the engineer should still
mark the checklist item NC (following ASCE 31 provisions) but may annotate the checklist and
deficiency list to say “local only; acceptable for 2-star Safety” or similar.
Instruction 1.3.3 means that if the rating engineer is different from the evaluating engineer, the rating
engineer should not use his own judgment to revise the evaluation. The rating engineer may accept
judgments by a qualified evaluating engineer and may replicate the evaluation as needed to support his
own judgment, but the rating engineer should not adjust another engineer’s evaluation results without
sufficient building-specific knowledge.
1.4 Presentation of Results.

The minimum presentation of an EPRS rating is described in Section 3 of the EPRS User’s guide. For
ratings based on ASCE 31, a full presentation of the rating (see User’s Guide Section 3.2) should also
include:
 The Worksheet provided with this publication, completed, showing how the rating was derived
from the ASCE 31 evaluation.
 The applicable ASCE 31 deficiency list and Tier 1 checklists, annotated as needed to explain any
conditions assumed, judgment applied, or revisions made based on Tier 2 or Tier 3 evaluation.
 The balance of any report describing the ASCE 31 evaluation underlying the rating.
Commentary: A full presentation might also include other materials required by a program using the
rating, or materials agreed to by the engineer and the client. See User’s Guide Section 3.
SEAONC 4 March 22,

2015
References
ASCE, 2003. Seismic Evaluation of Existing Buildings (ASCE/SEI 31-03), American Society of Civil
Engineers.
ASCE, 2012. Seismic Evaluation and Retrofit of Existing Buildings: Pre-publication Edition for Public
Comment and Final Review (ASCE/SEI 41-13), American Society of Civil Engineers.
Bonowitz, D., 2011. “Resilience Criteria for Seismic Evaluation of Existing Buildings,” Report to Structural
Engineers Association of Northern California, August 5.
SEAONC BRC, 2015. “Earthquake Performance Rating System: User’s Guide,” Structural Engineers
Association of California, February 2.
SEAONC Existing Buildings Committee, Building Ratings Subcommittee, 2012. “SEAONC Earthquake
Performance Rating System: Translating ASCE 31-03,” SEAOC 2012 Convention Proceedings, Structural
Engineers Association of California.
SEAONC 5 March 22,

2015
Building:______________________________________________________________________________
Part 1. Eligibility and Due Diligence

Yes/No/NA
1.1. Site Visit: Was a site visit conducted in accordance with ASCE 31 Section 2.3?
1.2. Investigation: Was document review and visual and/or destructive

investigation performed as required by ASCE 31 Section 2.2?
Note: ASCE 31 Section 2.2 requirements for Tier 2 evaluation and/or for
Immediate Occupancy evaluation need not have been performed if the rating
does not rely on such evaluation.
1.3. Condition Assessment: Were existing components investigated for significant

deterioration, damage, or defects, in general conformance with ASCE 31
Sections 4.3.3 and 4.7.2, with structural capacities adjusted accordingly?
1.4. Tier 2 Requirements: If a full-building analysis was required by ASCE 31 Table 3-

3, was such an analysis performed? If no such analysis was required, enter NA.
Note: ASCE 41-13 Table 3-2 may be used as an alternative to ASCE 31 Table 3-3.
CHECK: If any of the responses in lines 1.1 through 1.4 is No, each part of the rating is No Rating; skip to
Section 5. If each of the responses in lines 1.1 through 1.4 is Yes or NA, proceed to Section 2.
Part 2. Safety Rating

Safety Rating instructions and notes:
1. The Safety Rating is taken as the lowest of three sub-ratings: Structural, Geologic/Foundation, and
Nonstructural.
Tip: The Safety Rating can be limited by unknown geologic site hazards (line 2.2) and by an
incomplete nonstructural evaluation (line 2.3). It can save effort to check these sections first.
2.1 Structural
Yes/No/NA
2.1.1. Is the seismic force-resisting system (SFRS) benchmarked for Life Safety, but not
for Immediate Occupancy, in accordance with ASCE 31 Table 3-1 and ASCE 31
Section 3.2?
CHECK: If Yes, the structural safety sub-rating is 4-star.
SEAONC Worksheet Page 1 March 22,

2015
Building:______________________________________________________________________________
2.1.2. Is the seismic force-resisting system (SFRS) benchmarked for Immediate

Occupancy using FEMA 310 (but not CBC) in accordance with ASCE 31 Table 3-1
and ASCE 31 Section 3.2?
Commentary: Consistent with ASCE 41-13, the EPRS does not acknowledge
benchmarking to the CBC.
CHECK: If Yes, the structural safety sub-rating is 5-star.
2.1.3. Compare the ASCE 31 deficiency list with the structural items in Table 2.1 and answer the
following questions.
Notes:
 Table 2.1 has one page for each ASCE 31 building type. If the building’s seismic force-resisting
system involves more than one type, complete line 2.1.3 separately for each type. The structural
safety sub-rating is the lowest of the structural safety sub-ratings for any type considered.
 The four right-most columns in Table 2.1 provide a place to record ASCE 31 findings for each
checklist item. The next four columns to the left are shaded and marked with a “C” to indicate
which checklist items must be Compliant to merit each structural safety sub-rating.
 Geologic Site Hazard and Foundation items, though shown in Table 2.1, are not considered in
line 2.1.3. See line 2.2.
Yes/No/NA
2.1.3.1. Is each structural item required for a “5-star” rating marked either C or NA?
CHECK: If Yes, and the SFRS or building type is W1, W1A, W2, S1, S1A, S2,
S2A, S3, C1, or PC2A, the structural safety sub-rating is 4-star. Proceed to line
2.2
CHECK: If Yes, and the SFRS or building type is not one of those listed above,
the structural safety sub-rating is 5-star. Proceed to line 2.2.
CHECK: If Yes, the structural safety sub-rating is 4-star. Proceed to line 2.2
CHECK: If Yes, the structural safety sub-rating is 2-star. If No, the structural
safety sub-rating is 1-star. Skip to line 2.4 or, optionally, continue with line
2.2 or 2.3.
Commentary: In line 2.1.3, there is no need to check the “3-star rating” column of Table 2.1, because the
3-star and 4-star compliance requirements are identical. Any structural deficiency in the 4-star rating
column will reduce the structural safety sub-rating to 2-star. Deficient nonstructural components,
however, can result in a 3-star Safety rating.

2015
Building:______________________________________________________________________________
2.2 Geologic Site Hazards and Foundations

Compare the ASCE 31 deficiency list with the geologic/foundation items in Table 2.2.
Notes:
 Regarding the ASCE 31 checklist item on LIQUEFACTION: If the building site and nearby
topography is sloped or otherwise graded such that lateral spreading would be likely to lead to
structural collapse, then in Table 2.2, compliance with the LIQUEFACTION item should be
considered necessary for a 2-star rating.
Yes/No/NA
2.2.1 Is each geologic/foundation item required for a “5-star” rating marked either C
or NA?
CHECK: If Yes, the geologic/foundation safety sub-rating is 5-star. Proceed to
line 2.3.
2.2.2. Is each geologic/foundation item required for a “4-star” rating marked either C
or NA?
CHECK: If Yes, the geologic/foundation safety sub-rating is 4-star. Proceed to
line 2.3.
2.2.3. Is each geologic/foundation item required for a “2-star” rating marked either C
or NA?
CHECK: If Yes, the geologic/foundation safety sub-rating is 2-star. If No, the
geologic/foundation safety sub-rating is 1-star. Skip to line 2.4 or, optionally,
continue with line 2.3.
Commentary: In line 2.2 (similar to line 2.1.3), there is no need to check the “3-star rating” column of
Table 2.2, because the 3-star and 4-star compliance requirements are identical.
2.3 Nonstructural
Compare the ASCE 31 deficiency list with Table 2.3, and determine the highest nonstructural safety sub-
rating justified by the evaluation.
Notes:
 In Table 2.3, the initial (B), (I), or (S) indicates the ASCE 31 nonstructural checklist where the
item is found: Basic, Intermediate, or Supplemental.
 In Table 2.3, for purposes of deriving the Safety rating only, items in the 3-star and 4-star
columns need not be considered NC if the non-compliance occurs only in locations where
related damage would not cause severe injury or death. Findings from ASCE 31 evaluations
performed at the Life Safety level only might need to be revised for purposes of deriving Repair
Cost and Recovery ratings if the ASCE 31 findings assumed unoccupied spaces. Commentary:
This allowance is consistent with ASCE 41-13 Section 16.17.

2015
Building:______________________________________________________________________________
Table 2.3. ASCE 31 compliance required for nonstructural safety sub-rating

Nonstructural For a 2-star For a 3-star For a 4-star For a 5-star
checklist nonstructural nonstructural safety nonstructural nonstructural safety
section safety sub- sub-rating, comply safety sub-rating, sub-rating, comply
rating, comply with 2-star comply with 3-star with 4-star
with: requirements and: requirements and: requirements and:
Partitions – (B) UNREINFORCED (S) DRIFT (S) STRUCTURAL
MASONRY SEPARATIONS
(S) TOPS
Ceilings – (I) SUSPENDED LATH (B) SUPPORT (S) EDGES
AND PLASTER (I) LAY-IN TILES (S) SEISMIC JOINT
(I) INTEGRATED
CEILINGS
Light fixtures – (I) INDEPENDENT (B) EMERGENCY (S) PENDANT SUPPORTS
SUPPORT LIGHTING (S) LENS COVERS
Cladding & – (B) CLADDING ANCHORS (S) GLAZING –
glazing (B) CLADDING RESTRAINT
ISOLATION
(B) MULTI-STORY
PANELS
(B) BEARING
CONNECTIONS
(B) INSERTS
(B) PANEL
CONNECTIONS
(I) OVERHEAD GLAZING
Masonry – (B) SHELF ANGLES (LS) (B) SHELF ANGLES (S) OPENINGS
veneer (B) TIES (IO)
(B) WEAKENED PLANES (S) MORTAR
(S) STUD TRACKS
(S) ANCHORAGE
(S) URM BACK-UP
Appendages – (B) URM PARAPETS – (I) APPENDAGES (IO)
(B) CANOPIES
(I) CONCRETE PARAPETS
(I) APPENDAGES (LS)
Chimneys – (B) URM CHIMNEYS – –
(I) ANCHORAGE
Stairs – (B) URM WALLS – –
(B) STAIR DETAILS
Contents – (B) TALL NARROW (S) FILE CABINETS (S) ACCESS FLOORS
CONTENTS (S) EQUIPMENT ON
ACCESS FLOORS
Mechanical & – (B) EMERGENCY POWER (S) HEAVY (I) VIBRATION
electrical (B) HAZARDOUS EQUIPMENT ISOLATORS
equipment MATERIAL (S) ELECTRICAL
EQUIPMENT EQUIPMENT
(B) ATTACHED (S) DOORS
EQUIPMENT

2015
Building:______________________________________________________________________________
Nonstructural For a 2-star For a 3-star For a 4-star For a 5-star

checklist nonstructural nonstructural safety nonstructural nonstructural safety
section safety sub- sub-rating, comply safety sub-rating, sub-rating, comply
rating, comply with 2-star comply with 3-star with 4-star
with: requirements and: requirements and: requirements and:
Piping (B) FLEXIBLE (B) FIRE SUPPRESSION – (S) FLUID AND GAS
COUPLING PIPING PIPING
(S) SHUT-OFF VALVES
(S) C-CLAMPS
Ducts – (I) STAIR AND SMOKE – (S) DUCT BRACING
DUCTS (S) DUCT SUPPORT
Hazardous (S) GAS (B) TOXIC SUBSTANCES – –
materials CYLINDERS (S) HAZARDOUS
MATERIALS
Elevators – – – (S) SUPPORT SYSTEM
(S) SEISMIC SWITCH
(S) SHAFT WALLS
(S) RETAINER GUARDS
(S) RETAINER PLATE
(S) COUNTERWEIGHT
RAILS
(S) BRACKETS
(S) SPREADER BRACKET
(S) GO-SLOW
ELEVATORS
2.4 Safety Rating Summary

Structural safety sub-rating from line 2.1: ______
Geologic/foundation safety sub-rating from line 2.2: ______
Nonstructural safety sub-rating from line 2.3: ______
The overall Safety Rating is the lowest of the three sub-ratings: ______
Part 3. Repair Cost Rating

Repair Cost Rating instructions and notes:
1. The Repair Cost Rating is taken as the lowest of two sub-ratings: Geologic, and
Structural/nonstructural.
3.1 Geologic
Are any of the following Tier 1 checklist items on the ASCE 31 deficiency list? ______
 LIQUEFACTION

2015
Building:______________________________________________________________________________
 SLOPE FAILURE
 SURFACE FAULT RUPTURE
CHECK: If Yes, the geologic repair cost sub-rating is 1-star. If No, the geologic repair cost sub-rating is 5-
star.
3.2 Structural/Nonstructural
Determine the structural/nonstructural repair cost sub-rating as a function of the ASCE 31 building type
and the overall building Safety Rating (line 2.4) from Table 3.2.
Note: Table 3.2 generally relies on the Safety rating, determined above. Where the nonstructural safety
sub-rating relies on assumptions that potential damage need not be considered NC because it would
occur in unoccupied areas or otherwise would not result in severe injury or death, such assumptions
must be set aside for purposes of deriving Repair Cost and Recovery ratings.
Table 3.2. Structural/nonstructural repair cost sub-rating as a function of ASCE 31

building type and overall Safety Rating
Safety Rating
ASCE 31 building type
5-star 4-star 3-star 2-star 1-star
W1, W1A, W2 4-star 3-star 3-star 2-star 1-star
Other 3-star 2-star 2-star 1-star 1-star
Commentary: Assignment of the structural/nonstructural repair cost sub-rating is intentionally

conservative. This reflects the understanding that ASCE 31 was not intended to predict costs. For more
discussion, see SEAONC EBC BRS (2012).
3.3 Repair Cost Rating summary

Geologic repair cost sub-rating from line 3.1: ______
Structural/nonstructural repair cost sub-rating from line 3.2: ______
The overall Repair Cost Rating is the lower of the two sub-ratings: ______

2015
Building:______________________________________________________________________________
Part 4. Recovery Rating

Recovery Rating instructions and notes:
1. The Recovery Rating is taken as the lowest of three sub-ratings: Geologic, Structural, and
Nonstructural.
Commentary: The EPRS Recovery Rating reflects functional recovery time, as opposed to the time needed
for either safe re-occupancy or for full recovery, but excludes the effects of externalities. See the EPRS
User’s Guide.
4.1 Geologic
Are any of the following Tier 1 checklist items on the ASCE 31 deficiency list? ______
 LIQUEFACTION
 SLOPE FAILURE
 SURFACE FAULT RUPTURE
CHECK: If Yes, the geologic recovery sub-rating is 1-star; skip to line 4.4 or, optionally, continue with line
4.2 or 4.3. If No, the geologic recovery sub-rating is 5-star.
4.2 Structural
Is the structural safety sub-rating (line 2.1) either 1-star or 2-star? _______
CHECK: If Yes, the structural recovery sub-rating is 1-star. Skip to line 4.4 or, optionally, continue with
line 4.3. If No, continue.
Is the structural safety sub-rating (line 2.1) either 3-star or 4-star? _______
CHECK: If Yes, the structural recovery sub-rating is 3-star. If No (that is, if the structural safety sub-rating
is 5-star), the structural recovery sub-rating is 5-star.
4.3 Nonstructural
4.3.1. Initial nonstructural recovery sub-rating:
Compare the ASCE 31 deficiency list with Table 4.3.1 and determine the highest nonstructural recovery
sub-rating justified by the evaluation.
Notes:
 In Table 4.3.1, the initial indicates the ASCE 31 nonstructural checklist where the item is found:
Basic (B), Intermediate (I), or Supplemental (S).

2015
Building:______________________________________________________________________________
 Table 4.3.1 generally relies on the Safety rating, determined above. Where the nonstructural
safety sub-rating relies on assumptions that potential damage need not be considered NC
because it would occur in unoccupied areas or otherwise would not result in severe injury or
death, such assumptions must be set aside for purposes of deriving Repair Cost and Recovery
ratings.
Commentary: Assignment of the nonstructural recovery sub-rating is based on SEAONC BRS judgment,
recognizing that ASCE 31 was not intended to predict recovery time. For more discussion, see SEAONC
EBC BRS (2012) and Bonowitz (2011) in the EPRS User’s Guide list of References.

2015
Building:______________________________________________________________________________
Table 4.3.1. ASCE 31 compliance required for nonstructural recovery sub-rating

Nonstructural For a 2-star For a 3-star nonstructural For a 4-star nonstructural For a 5-star nonstructural
checklist nonstructural recovery recovery sub-rating, comply recovery sub-rating, comply with recovery sub-rating, comply
section sub-rating, comply with 2-star requirements and: 3-star requirements and: with 4-star requirements and:
with:
Partitions – – (B) UNREINFORCED MASONRY (S) STRUCTURAL SEPARATIONS
(S) DRIFT
(S) TOPS
Ceilings – – (I) SUSPENDED LATH AND PLASTER (I) INTEGRATED CEILINGS
(B) SUPPORT (I) LAY-IN TILES
(S) EDGESa
(S) SEISMIC JOINTa
Light fixtures – (B) EMERGENCY LIGHTING – (S) LENS COVERS
(I) INDEPENDENT SUPPORT
(S) PENDANT SUPPORTS
Cladding & – – (B) CLADDING ANCHORS –
glazing (B) CLADDING ISOLATION
(B) MULTI-STORY PANELS
(B) BEARING CONNECTIONS
(B) INSERTS
(B) PANEL CONNECTIONS
(I) OVERHEAD GLAZING
(S) GLAZING RESTRAINT
Masonry – – (B) SHELF ANGLES (LS) –
veneer (B) TIES
(B) WEAKENED PLANES
(S) MORTAR
(S) STUD TRACKS
(S) OPENINGS
(S) ANCHORAGE
(S) URM BACK-UP

2015
Building:______________________________________________________________________________
with:
Appendages – – (B) URM PARAPETS –
(B) CANOPIES
(I) CONCRETE PARAPETS
(I) APPENDAGES (LS)
(I) APPENDAGES (IO)
Chimneys – – (B) URM CHIMNEYS –
(I) ANCHORAGE
Stairs – (B) STAIR DETAILS (B) URM WALLS –
Contents – (S) ACCESS FLOORS – (B) TALL NARROW CONTENTS
(S) EQUIPMENT ON ACCESS (S) FILE CABINETSa
FLOORS (S) CABINET DOORS AND
DRAWERSa
Mechanical & – (B) EMERGENCY POWER – (S) HEAVY EQUIPMENT

electrical (B) HAZARDOUS MATERIAL
equipment EQUIPMENT
(B) ATTACHED EQUIPMENT
(I) VIBRATION ISOLATORS
(S) ELECTRICAL EQUIPMENT
(S) DOORS
Piping (B) FIRE SUPPRESSION (S) FLUID PIPING, non hazmat (S) C-CLAMPS –
PIPING
(B) FLEXIBLE COUPLING
(S) SHUT-OFF VALVES
(S) FLUID AND GAS
PIPING, hazmat
Ducts – (I) STAIR AND SMOKE DUCTS – –
(S) DUCT BRACING
(S) DUCT SUPPORT

2015
Building:______________________________________________________________________________
with:
Hazardous (B) TOXIC SUBSTANCES – – –
materials (S) GAS CYLINDERS
(S) HAZARDOUS
MATERIALS
Elevators – (S) SUPPORT SYSTEM – –
(S) SEISMIC SWITCH
(S) SHAFT WALLS
(S) RETAINER GUARDS
(S) RETAINER PLATE
(S) COUNTERWEIGHT RAILS
(S) BRACKETS
(S) SPREADER BRACKET
(S) GO-SLOW ELEVATORS
a
These items need not be considered except for purposes of adjusting the nonstructural recovery sub-rating in line 4.3.1.

2015
Building:______________________________________________________________________________
4.3.2. Adjusting the nonstructural recovery sub-rating:

The initial nonstructural recovery sub-rating based on Table 4.3.1 (line 4.3.1) is: ______.
If the initial sub-rating is 1-star, skip this line and proceed to line 4.4. Otherwise, in the following lines, at
the top of column (A), enter the initial nonstructural recovery sub-rating, plus 1 star. At the top of
column (B), enter the initial sub-rating plus 2 stars. (For example, if the initial sub-rating from line 4.3.1
is 3-star, enter 4-star at the top of column (A) and 5-star at the top of column (B).)
Complete column (A): Consider the items from the ASCE 31 deficiency list that appear in Table 4.3.1 in
the column corresponding to column A, and answer the following questions (Yes/No). (For example, if
column (A) is labeled 4-star, compare the deficiency list with the 4-star column of Table 4.3.1.) Complete
column (B) similarly.
(A) (B)
___-star ___-star
4.3.2.1. Size adjustment: Are any of the deficiencies extensive throughout
the building, or is the building large enough that the functional
recovery time for that item would probably exceed the time
implied by the initial sub-rating?
4.3.2.2. Public use adjustment: Do any of the building’s occupancies or
functions of interest involve public access or accommodation, so
that the functional recovery time for any of the deficiencies must
consider issues of habitability or legal compliance?
4.3.2.3. Contents adjustment: Would any of the deficiencies (or expected
damage to other contents items not considered explicitly by ASCE
31) have a disproportionate impact on functional recovery time
due to specialized use or occupancy, or performance requirements
of the building?
Total number of Yes responses from lines 4.3.2.1 through 4.3.2.3:
The initial sub-rating, minus the total number of Yes responses in column (A) is: ____.
The initial sub-rating, plus 1, minus the total number of Yes responses in column (B) is: ____.
The final nonstructural recovery sub-rating is the lower of these two values: ____.
Commentary: The adjustment procedure reflects the following logic: First, consider the deficiencies that
are controlling the nonstructural recovery sub-rating; these will be in the Table 4.3.1 columns to the right
of the column with which the building complies. Then, ask if any of these deficiencies are extensive or
serious enough that they merit a lower sub-rating. If one condition applies, the sub-rating is reduced by
one star. If two or more apply, it is reduced by two stars.

2015
Building:______________________________________________________________________________
4.4 Recovery Rating summary

Geologic recovery sub-rating from line 4.1: ______
Structural recovery sub-rating from line 4.2: ______
Nonstructural recovery sub-rating from line 4.3.2: ______
The overall Recovery Rating is the lowest of the three sub-ratings: ______
Part 5. Summary
Record the three-part rating and the sub-ratings.
Sub-ratings Overall Rating to
rating report, or
Structural Geologic/ Nonstructural
No Rating
foundation
Safety (line 2.4)
Repair Cost (line 3.3) Same as

structural
Recovery (line 4.4)
Commentary: The EPRS allows the rating engineer to report No Rating for any of the rating dimensions,
as discussed in the EPRS User’s Guide.
Tip: If unknown conditions are driving the rating, consider reporting the rating as “No Rating” as an
indication that more work might be justified to reach a more reliable conclusion.

2015
Building:______________________________________________________________________________
Table 2.1 - W1 (Wood Light Frames)

Compliance Required for
ASCE 31
Safety sub-Rating:
Tier 2
Section Checklist Heading Section Item 5-Star 4-Star 3-Star 2-Star C NC NA U
4.3.1.1 Basic Building System General LOAD PATH C C C C
4.3.2.4 Basic Building System Configuration VERTICAL DISCONTINUITIES C C C C
4.4.2.1.1 Basic Lateral Force Resisting System Shear Walls REDUNDANCY, shear walls C C C
4.4.2.7.1 Basic Lateral Force Resisting System Shear Walls SHEAR STRESS CHECK, wood walls C C C C
4.4.2.7.2 Basic Lateral Force Resisting System Shear Walls STUCCO (EXTERIOR PLASTER) SHEAR WALLS C C C C
4.4.2.7.3 Basic Lateral Force Resisting System Shear Walls GYPSUM WALLBOARD OR PLASTER SHEAR WALLS C C C C
4.4.2.7.4 Basic Lateral Force Resisting System Shear Walls NARROW WOOD SHEAR WALLS (LS) C C C
4.4.2.7.4 Basic Lateral Force Resisting System Shear Walls NARROW WOOD SHEAR WALLS (IO) C
4.4.2.7.5 Basic Lateral Force Resisting System Shear Walls WALLS CONNECTED THROUGH FLOORS C C C C
4.4.2.7.6 Basic Lateral Force Resisting System Shear Walls HILLSIDE SITE (LS) C C C C
4.4.2.7.6 Basic Lateral Force Resisting System Shear Walls HILLSIDE SITE (IO) C
4.4.2.7.7 Basic Lateral Force Resisting System Shear Walls CRIPPLE WALLS C C C
4.4.2.7.8 Basic Lateral Force Resisting System Shear Walls OPENINGS C C C C
4.6.3.3 Basic Connections Vertical Components WOOD POSTS C C C
4.6.3.4 Basic Connections Vertical Components WOOD SILLS C C C
4.6.4.1 Basic Connections Interconnection of Elements GIRDER/COLUMN CONNECTION C C C
4.4.2.7.9 Supplemental Lateral Force Resisting System Shear Walls HOLD-DOWN ANCHORS C
4.5.1.1 Supplemental Diaphragms General DIAPHRAGM CONTINUITY C C C C
4.5.1.2 Supplemental Diaphragms General DIAPHRAGM CONTINUITY (One Story Building) C C C
4.5.1.3 Supplemental Diaphragms General ROOF CHORD CONTINUITY C C C
4.5.1.7 Supplemental Diaphragms General PLAN IRREGULARITIES C
4.5.1.8 Supplemental Diaphragms General DIAPHRAGM REINFORCEMENT AT OPENINGS C
4.5.2.1 Supplemental Diaphragms Wood Diaphragms STRAIGHT SHEATHING (LS) C C C
4.5.2.1 Supplemental Diaphragms Wood Diaphragms STRAIGHT SHEATHING (IO) C
4.5.2.2 Supplemental Diaphragms Wood Diaphragms SPANS (LS) C C C
4.5.2.2 Supplemental Diaphragms Wood Diaphragms SPANS (IO) C
4.5.2.3 Supplemental Diaphragms Wood Diaphragms UNBLOCKED DIAPHRAGMS (LS) C C C
4.5.2.3 Supplemental Diaphragms Wood Diaphragms UNBLOCKED DIAPHRAGMS (IO) C
4.5.7.1 Supplemental Diaphragms Other Diaphragms OTHER DIAPHRAGMS C C C
4.6.3.9 Supplemental Connections Vertical Components WOOD SILL BOLTS (LS) C C C
4.6.3.9 Supplemental Connections Vertical Components WOOD SILL BOLTS (IO) C
Note: C = Compliance required for the safety sub-rating shown
SEAONC Worksheet Page 14 March 22, 2015

Building:______________________________________________________________________________
Table 2.1 - W1A (Wood Multi-Story, Multi-Unit, Residential)

ASCE 31
Safety sub-Rating:
Tier 2
4.3.2.1 Basic Building System Configuration WEAK STORY C C C C
4.3.2.2 Basic Building System Configuration SOFT STORY C C C C
4.4.2.7.4 Basic Lateral Force Resisting System Shear Walls NARROW WOOD SHEAR WALLS (LS) C C C C
4.4.2.7.7 Basic Lateral Force Resisting System Shear Walls CRIPPLE WALLS C C C C
4.6.3.4 Basic Connections Vertical Components WOOD SILLS C C C C
4.6.4.1 Basic Connections Interconnection of Elements GIRDER/COLUMN CONNECTION C C C C

Building:______________________________________________________________________________
Table 2.1 - W2 (Wood Frames, Commercial & Industrial)

ASCE 31
Safety sub-Rating:
Tier 2
4.3.1.3 Basic Building System General MEZZANINES C C C
4.3.2.3 Basic Building System Configuration GEOMETRY C C C C
4.3.2.5 Basic Building System Configuration MASS C C C C
4.4.2.7.4 Basic Lateral Force Resisting System Shear Walls NARROW WOOD SHEAR WALLS (LS) C C C C
4.4.2.7.7 Basic Lateral Force Resisting System Shear Walls CRIPPLE WALLS C C C C
4.6.3.4 Basic Connections Vertical Components WOOD SILLS C C C C

Building:______________________________________________________________________________
Table 2.1 - S1 (Steel Moment Frames - Stiff Diaphragms)

ASCE 31
Safety sub-Rating:
Tier 2
4.3.1.2 Basic Building System General ADJACENT BUILDINGS C C C
4.3.2.6 Basic Building System Configuration TORSION C C C C
4.4.1.1.1 Basic Lateral Force Resisting System Moment Frames REDUNDANCY, moment frames (LS) C C C
4.4.1.1.1 Basic Lateral Force Resisting System Moment Frames REDUNDANCY, moment frames (IO) C
4.4.1.2.1 Basic Lateral Force Resisting System Moment Frames INTERFERING WALLS C C C
4.4.1.3.1. Basic Lateral Force Resisting System Moment Frames DRIFT CHECK (LS) C C C
4.4.1.3.1. Basic Lateral Force Resisting System Moment Frames DRIFT CHECK (IO) C
4.4.1.3.2 Basic Lateral Force Resisting System Moment Frames AXIAL STRESS CHECK, steel columns C C C C
4.6.2.2 Basic Connections Shear Transfer TRANSFER TO STEEL FRAMES (LS) C C C C
4.6.2.2 Basic Connections Shear Transfer TRANSFER TO STEEL FRAMES (IO) C
4.6.3.1 Basic Connections Vertical Components STEEL COLUMNS (LS) C C C C
4.6.3.1 Basic Connections Vertical Components STEEL COLUMNS (IO) C
4.4.1.3.3 Supplemental Lateral Force Resisting System Moment Frames MOMENT-RESISTING CONNECTIONS C C C
4.4.1.3.4 Supplemental Lateral Force Resisting System Moment Frames PANEL ZONES C C C
4.4.1.3.5 Supplemental Lateral Force Resisting System Moment Frames COLUMN SPLICES, steel moment frames (LS) C C C C
4.4.1.3.5 Supplemental Lateral Force Resisting System Moment Frames COLUMN SPLICES, steel moment frames (IO) C
4.4.1.3.6 Supplemental Lateral Force Resisting System Moment Frames STRONG COLUMN/WEAK BEAM, steel C C C
4.4.1.3.7 Supplemental Lateral Force Resisting System Moment Frames COMPACT MEMBERS C C C
4.4.1.3.8 Supplemental Lateral Force Resisting System Moment Frames BEAM PENETRATIONS C
4.4.1.3.9 Supplemental Lateral Force Resisting System Moment Frames GIRDER FLANGE CONTINUITY PLATES C
4.4.1.3.10 Supplemental Lateral Force Resisting System Moment Frames OUT-OF-PLANE BRACING, steel moment frames C
4.4.1.3.11 Supplemental Lateral Force Resisting System Moment Frames BOTTOM FLANGE BRACING C
4.6.3.10 Supplemental Connections Vertical Components UPLIFT AT PILE CAPS (LS) C C C
4.6.3.10 Supplemental Connections Vertical Components UPLIFT AT PILE CAPS (IO) C

Building:______________________________________________________________________________
Table 2.1 - S1A (Steel Moment Frames - Flexible Diaphragms)
ASCE 31
Safety sub-Rating:
Tier 2
4.4.1.2.1 Basic Lateral Force Resisting System Moment Frames INTERFERING WALLS C C C
4.4.1.3.1. Basic Lateral Force Resisting System Moment Frames DRIFT CHECK (LS) C C C
4.4.1.3.1. Basic Lateral Force Resisting System Moment Frames DRIFT CHECK (IO) C
4.4.1.3.4 Supplemental Lateral Force Resisting System Moment Frames PANEL ZONES C C C
4.4.1.3.5 Supplemental Lateral Force Resisting System Moment Frames COLUMN SPLICES, steel moment frames (LS) C C C C
4.4.1.3.5 Supplemental Lateral Force Resisting System Moment Frames COLUMN SPLICES, steel moment frames (IO) C
4.4.1.3.6 Supplemental Lateral Force Resisting System Moment Frames STRONG COLUMN/WEAK BEAM, steel C C C
4.4.1.3.9 Supplemental Lateral Force Resisting System Moment Frames GIRDER FLANGE CONTINUITY PLATES C
4.5.1.2 Supplemental Diaphragms General CROSS TIES C C C
4.5.3.1 Supplemental Diaphragms Metal Deck Diaphragms NON-CONCRETE FILLED DIAPHRAGMS C

Building:______________________________________________________________________________
Table 2.1 - S2 (Steel Braced Frames - Stiff Diaphragms)

ASCE 31
Safety sub-Rating:
Tier 2
4.4.3.1.1 Basic Lateral Force Resisting System Braced Frames REDUNDANCY, braced frames (LS) C C C
4.4.3.1.1 Basic Lateral Force Resisting System Braced Frames REDUNDANCY, braced frames (IO) C
4.4.3.1.2 Basic Lateral Force Resisting System Braced Frames AXIAL STRESS CHECK, steel diagonals C C C C
4.4.3.1.3 Basic Lateral Force Resisting System Braced Frames COLUMN SPLICES, braced frames C
4.4.3.1.4 Supplemental Lateral Force Resisting System Braced Frames SLENDERNESS OF DIAGONALS C C C C
4.4.3.1.5 Supplemental Lateral Force Resisting System Braced Frames CONNECTION STRENGTH C C C
4.4.3.1.6 Supplemental Lateral Force Resisting System Braced Frames OUT-OF-PLANE BRACING, steel braced frames C
4.4.3.2.1 Supplemental Lateral Force Resisting System Braced Frames K-BRACING C C C C
4.4.3.2.2 Supplemental Lateral Force Resisting System Braced Frames TENSION-ONLY BRACES C
4.4.3.2.3 Supplemental Lateral Force Resisting System Braced Frames CHEVRON BRACING C
4.4.3.2.4 Supplemental Lateral Force Resisting System Braced Frames CONCENTRICALLY BRACED FRAME JOINTS C
4.5.1.5 Supplemental Diaphragms General OPENINGS AT BRACED FRAMES (LS) C C C
4.5.1.5 Supplemental Diaphragms General OPENINGS AT BRACED FRAMES (IO) C

Building:______________________________________________________________________________
Table 2.1 - S2A (Steel Braced Frames - Flexible Diaphragms)

ASCE 31
Safety sub-Rating:
Tier 2
4.4.3.1.1 Basic Lateral Force Resisting System Braced Frames REDUNDANCY, braced frames (LS) C C C
4.4.3.1.1 Basic Lateral Force Resisting System Braced Frames REDUNDANCY, braced frames (IO) C
4.4.3.1.3 Basic Lateral Force Resisting System Braced Frames COLUMN SPLICES, braced frames C
4.4.3.1.4 Supplemental Lateral Force Resisting System Braced Frames SLENDERNESS OF DIAGONALS C C C C
4.4.3.1.5 Supplemental Lateral Force Resisting System Braced Frames CONNECTION STRENGTH C C C
4.4.3.1.6 Supplemental Lateral Force Resisting System Braced Frames OUT-OF-PLANE BRACING, steel braced frames C
4.4.3.2.1 Supplemental Lateral Force Resisting System Braced Frames K-BRACING C C C C
4.4.3.2.2 Supplemental Lateral Force Resisting System Braced Frames TENSION-ONLY BRACES C
4.4.3.2.3 Supplemental Lateral Force Resisting System Braced Frames CHEVRON BRACING C
4.4.3.2.4 Supplemental Lateral Force Resisting System Braced Frames CONCENTRICALLY BRACED FRAME JOINTS C
4.5.1.5 Supplemental Diaphragms General OPENINGS AT BRACED FRAMES (LS) C C C
4.5.1.5 Supplemental Diaphragms General OPENINGS AT BRACED FRAMES (IO) C

Building:______________________________________________________________________________
Table 2.1 - S3 (Steel Light Frames)

ASCE 31
Safety sub-Rating:
Tier 2
4.6.3.8 Basic Connections Vertical Components WALL PANELS, foundation attachment C C C C
4.6.5.1 Basic Connections Panel Connections ROOF PANELS C C C
4.6.5.2 Basic Connections Panel Connections WALL PANELS, framing attachment C C C C

Building:______________________________________________________________________________
Table 2.1 - S4 (Steel Frames with Concrete Shearwalls)

ASCE 31
Safety sub-Rating:
Tier 2
4.4.1.6.1 Basic Lateral Force Resisting System Moment Frames COMPLETE FRAMES C C C
4.4.2.2.1 Basic Lateral Force Resisting System Shear Walls SHEAR STRESS CHECK, concrete walls C C C
4.4.2.2.2 Basic Lateral Force Resisting System Shear Walls REINFORCING STEEL, non-tilt-up concrete walls C C C
4.4.2.2.9 Basic Lateral Force Resisting System Shear Walls COLUMN SPLICES, encased steel columns C
4.6.2.1 Basic Connections Shear Transfer TRANSFER TO SHEAR WALLS (LS) C C C C
4.6.2.1 Basic Connections Shear Transfer TRANSFER TO SHEAR WALLS (IO) C
4.6.3.5 Basic Connections Vertical Components FOUNDATION DOWELS (LS) C C C C
4.6.3.5 Basic Connections Vertical Components FOUNDATION DOWELS (IO) C
4.6.3.6 Basic Connections Vertical Components SHEAR-WALL-BOUNDARY COLUMNS (LS) C C C C
4.6.3.6 Basic Connections Vertical Components SHEAR-WALL-BOUNDARY COLUMNS (IO) C
4.4.2.2.3 Supplemental Lateral Force Resisting System Shear Walls COUPLING BEAMS (LS) C C C
4.4.2.2.3 Supplemental Lateral Force Resisting System Shear Walls COUPLING BEAMS (IO) C
4.4.2.2.4 Supplemental Lateral Force Resisting System Shear Walls OVERTURNING, concrete shear walls C
4.4.2.2.5 Supplemental Lateral Force Resisting System Shear Walls CONFINEMENT REINFORCING C
4.4.2.2.6 Supplemental Lateral Force Resisting System Shear Walls REINFORCING AT OPENINGS, concrete walls C
4.4.2.2.7 Supplemental Lateral Force Resisting System Shear Walls WALL THICKNESS, cast-in-place concrete C
4.4.2.2.8 Supplemental Lateral Force Resisting System Shear Walls WALL CONNECTIONS, concrete walls (LS) C C C
4.4.2.2.8 Supplemental Lateral Force Resisting System Shear Walls WALL CONNECTIONS, concrete walls (IO) C
4.5.1.4 Supplemental Diaphragms General OPENINGS AT SHEAR WALLS (LS) C C C
4.5.1.4 Supplemental Diaphragms General OPENINGS AT SHEAR WALLS (IO) C

Building:______________________________________________________________________________
Table 2.1 - S5 (Steel Frames with Infill Masonry Shearwalls)

ASCE 31
Safety sub-Rating:
Tier 2
4.4.2.4.1 Basic Lateral Force Resisting System Shear Walls SHEAR STRESS CHECK, reinforced masonry walls C C C
4.4.2.5.1 Basic Lateral Force Resisting System Shear Walls SHEAR STRESS CHECK, URM walls C C C
4.4.2.6.1 Basic Lateral Force Resisting System Shear Walls WALL CONNECTIONS, masonry walls C C C C
4.4.2.4.3 Supplemental Lateral Force Resisting System Shear Walls REINFORCING AT OPENINGS, masonry walls C
4.4.2.6.2 Supplemental Lateral Force Resisting System Shear Walls PROPORTIONS, infill walls (LS) C C C
4.4.2.6.2 Supplemental Lateral Force Resisting System Shear Walls PROPORTIONS, infill walls (IO) C
4.4.2.6.3 Supplemental Lateral Force Resisting System Shear Walls SOLID WALLS C C C C

Building:______________________________________________________________________________
Table 2.1 - SSA (Steel Frames with 7n9ill Masonry Shearwalls - Flexible Diaphragms)

ASCE 31
Safety sub-Rating:
Tier 2
4.4.2.4.1 Basic Lateral Force Resisting System Shear Walls SHEAR STRESS CHECK, reinforced masonry walls C C C
4.4.2.5.1 Basic Lateral Force Resisting System Shear Walls SHEAR STRESS CHECK, URM walls C C C
4.5.2.1 Supplemental Diaphragms Wood Diaphragms STRAIGHT SHEATHING (LS) C C C C
4.5.2.2 Supplemental Diaphragms Wood Diaphragms SPANS (LS) C C C C
4.5.2.3 Supplemental Diaphragms Wood Diaphragms UNBLOCKED DIAPHRAGMS (LS) C C C C
4.6.1.4 Supplemental Connections Anchorage for Normal Forces STIFFNESS OF WALL ANCHORS C C C

Building:______________________________________________________________________________
Table 2.1 - C1 (Concrete Moment Frames)
ASCE 31
Safety sub-Rating:
Tier 2
4.3.3.5 Basic Building System Condition of Materials POST-TENSIONING ANCHORS C C C
4.4.1.1.1 Basic Lateral Force Resisting System Moment Frames REDUNDANCY, moment frames (I0) C
4.4.1.2.1 Basic Lateral Force Resisting System Moment Frames INTERFERING WALLS C C C C
4.4.1.4.1 Basic Lateral Force Resisting System Moment Frames SHEAR STRESS CHECK, concrete columns C C C C
4.4.1.4.2 Basic Lateral Force Resisting System Moment Frames AXIAL STRESS CHECK, concrete columns C C C C
4.6.3.2 Basic Connections Vertical Components CONCRETE COLUMNS (LS) C C C C
4.6.3.2 Basic Connections Vertical Components CONCRETE COLUMNS (IO) C
4.4.1.4.3 Supplemental Lateral Force Resisting System Moment Frames FLAT SLAB FRAMES C C C C
4.4.1.4.4 Supplemental Lateral Force Resisting System Moment Frames PRESTRESSED FRAME ELEMENTS C C C
4.4.1.4.5 Supplemental Lateral Force Resisting System Moment Frames CAPTIVE COLUMNS (LS) C C C C
4.4.1.4.5 Supplemental Lateral Force Resisting System Moment Frames CAPTIVE COLUMNS (IO) C
4.4.1.4.6 Supplemental Lateral Force Resisting System Moment Frames NO SHEAR FAILURES C C C C
4.4.1.4.7 Supplemental Lateral Force Resisting System Moment Frames STRONG COLUMN/WEAK BEAM, concrete C C C C
4.4.1.4.8 Supplemental Lateral Force Resisting System Moment Frames BEAM BARS C C C C
4.4.1.4.9 Supplemental Lateral Force Resisting System Moment Frames COLUMN-BAR SPLICES (LS) C C C C
4.4.1.4.9 Supplemental Lateral Force Resisting System Moment Frames COLUMN-BAR SPLICES (IO) C
4.4.1.4.10 Supplemental Lateral Force Resisting System Moment Frames BEAM BAR SPLICES C C C C
4.4.1.4.11 Supplemental Lateral Force Resisting System Moment Frames COLUMN-TIE SPACING C C C C
4.4.1.4.12 Supplemental Lateral Force Resisting System Moment Frames STIRRUP SPACING C C C C
4.4.1.4.13 Supplemental Lateral Force Resisting System Moment Frames JOINT REINFORCING C C C C
4.4.1.4.14 Supplemental Lateral Force Resisting System Moment Frames JOINT ECCENTRICITY C C C
4.4.1.4.15 Supplemental Lateral Force Resisting System Moment Frames STIRRUP AND TIE HOOKS C C C
4.4.1.6.2 Supplemental Lateral Force Resisting System Moment Frames DEFLECTION COMPATIBILITY (LS) C C C C
4.4.1.6.2 Supplemental Lateral Force Resisting System Moment Frames DEFLECTION COMPATIBILITY (IO) C
4.4.1.6.3 Supplemental Lateral Force Resisting System Moment Frames FLAT SLABS C C C C

Building:______________________________________________________________________________
Table 2.1 - C2 (Concrete Shear Walls - Stiff Diaphragms)

ASCE 31
Safety sub-Rating:
Tier 2
4.4.2.2.1 Basic Lateral Force Resisting System Shear Walls SHEAR STRESS CHECK, concrete walls C C C C
4.4.2.2.2 Basic Lateral Force Resisting System Shear Walls REINFORCING STEEL, non-tilt-up concrete walls C C C C
4.4.1.6.2 Supplemental Lateral Force Resisting System Moment Frames DEFLECTION COMPATIBILITY (LS) C C C

Building:______________________________________________________________________________
Table 2.1 - C2A (Concrete Shear Walls - Flexible Diaphragms)

ASCE 31
Safety sub-Rating:
Tier 2
4.6.1.1 Basic Connections Anchorage for Normal Forces WALL ANCHORAGE C C C C
4.5.1.2 Supplemental Diaphragms General CROSS TIES C C C C
4.5.7.1 Supplemental Diaphragms Other Diaphragms OTHER DIAPHRAGMS C C C C

Building:______________________________________________________________________________
Table 2.1 - C3 (Concrete Frames with 9n:ill Masonry Shearwalls)

ASCE 31
Safety sub-Rating:
Tier 2
4.4.2.4.1 Basic Lateral Force Resisting System Shear Walls SHEAR STRESS CHECK, reinforced masonry walls C C C C
4.4.2.5.1 Basic Lateral Force Resisting System Shear Walls SHEAR STRESS CHECK, URM walls C C C C
4.6.2.1 Basic Connections Shear Transfer TRANSFER TO SHEAR WALLS (1O) C
4.6.3.2 Basic Connections Vertical Components CONCRETE COLUMNS (1O) C
4.4.2.6.4 Supplemental Lateral Force Resisting System Shear Walls INFILL WALLS C C C C
4.5.1.6 Supplemental Diaphragms General OPENINGS AT EXTERIOR MASONRY SHEAR WALLS (LS) C C C
4.5.1.6 Supplemental Diaphragms General OPENINGS AT EXTERIOR MASONRY SHEAR WALLS (IO) C

Building:______________________________________________________________________________
Table 2.1 - C3A (Concrete Frames with 1n ;ill Masonry Shearwalls - Flexible Diaphragms)
ASCE 31
Safety sub-Rating:
Tier 2
4.6.3.2 Basic Connections Vertical Components CONCRETE COLUMNS (IO) C
4.4.2.6.4 Supplemental Lateral Force Resisting System Shear Walls INFILL WALLS C C C C

Building:______________________________________________________________________________
Table 2.1 - PC1 (Precast/Tilt-Up Concrete Shearwalls - Flexible Diaphragms)
ASCE 31
Safety sub-Rating:
Tier 2
4.4.2.3.1 Basic Lateral Force Resisting System Shear Walls SHEAR STRESS CHECK, precast concrete walls C C C C
4.4.2.3.2 Basic Lateral Force Resisting System Shear Walls REINFORCING STEEL, tilt-up concrete walls C C C
4.6.1.2 Basic Connections Anchorage for Normal Forces WOOD LEDGERS C C C C
4.6.3.7 Basic Connections Vertical Components PRECAST WALL PANELS (LS) C C C C
4.6.3.7 Basic Connections Vertical Components PRECAST WALL PANELS (IO) C
4.4.2.3.3 Supplemental Lateral Force Resisting System Shear Walls WALL OPENINGS (LS) C C C C
4.4.2.3.3 Supplemental Lateral Force Resisting System Shear Walls WALL OPENINGS (IO) C
4.4.2.3.4 Supplemental Lateral Force Resisting System Shear Walls CORNER OPENINGS C C C
4.4.2.3.5 Supplemental Lateral Force Resisting System Shear Walls PANEL-TO-PANEL CONNECTIONS C
4.4.2.3.6 Supplemental Lateral Force Resisting System Shear Walls WALL THICKNESS, precast concrete C
4.6.1.3 Supplemental Connections Anchorage for Normal Forces PRECAST PANEL CONNECTIONS (LS) C C C C
4.6.1.3 Supplemental Connections Anchorage for Normal Forces PRECAST PANEL CONNECTIONS (IO) C
4.6.4.2 Supplemental Connections Interconnection of Elements GIRDERS C C C

Building:______________________________________________________________________________
Table 2.1 - PC1A (Precast/Tilt-Up Concrete Shearwalls - Stiff Diaphragms)

ASCE 31
Safety sub-Rating:
Tier 2
4.4.2.3.1 Basic Lateral Force Resisting System Shear Walls SHEAR STRESS CHECK, precast concrete walls C C C C
4.4.2.3.2 Basic Lateral Force Resisting System Shear Walls REINFORCING STEEL, tilt-up concrete walls C C C
4.5.5.1 Basic Diaphragms Precast Concrete Diaphragms TOPPING SLAB C C C C
4.6.2.3 Basic Connections Shear Transfer TOPPING SLAB TO WALLS OR FRAMES (LS) C C C C
4.6.2.3 Basic Connections Shear Transfer TOPPING SLAB TO WALLS OR FRAMES (IO) C
4.6.3.7 Basic Connections Vertical Components PRECAST WALL PANELS (LS) C C C C
4.6.3.7 Basic Connections Vertical Components PRECAST WALL PANELS (IO) C
4.4.2.3.3 Supplemental Lateral Force Resisting System Shear Walls WALL OPENINGS (LS) C C C C
4.4.2.3.3 Supplemental Lateral Force Resisting System Shear Walls WALL OPENINGS (IO) C
4.4.2.3.4 Supplemental Lateral Force Resisting System Shear Walls CORNER OPENINGS C C C
4.4.2.3.5 Supplemental Lateral Force Resisting System Shear Walls PANEL-TO-PANEL CONNECTIONS C
4.4.2.3.6 Supplemental Lateral Force Resisting System Shear Walls WALL THICKNESS, precast concrete C
4.6.1.3 Supplemental Connections Anchorage for Normal Forces PRECAST PANEL CONNECTIONS (LS) C C C C
4.6.1.3 Supplemental Connections Anchorage for Normal Forces PRECAST PANEL CONNECTIONS (IO) C
Building:______________________________________________________________________________
Table 2.1 - PC2 (Precast Concrete Frames with Shearwalls)
ASCE 31
Safety sub-Rating:
Tier 2
4.4.1.5.2 Supplemental Lateral Force Resisting System Moment Frames PRECAST FRAMES C C C C
4.4.1.5.3 Supplemental Lateral Force Resisting System Moment Frames PRECAST CONNECTIONS C C C
4.6.4.3 Supplemental Connections Interconnection of Elements CORBEL BEARING C C C
4.6.4.4 Supplemental Connections Interconnection of Elements CORBEL CONNECTIONS C C C

Building:______________________________________________________________________________
Table 2.1 - PC2A (Precast Concrete Frames without Shearwalls)

ASCE 31
Safety sub-Rating:
Tier 2
4.4.1.4.1 Basic Lateral Force Resisting System Moment Frames SHEAR STRESS CHECK, concrete columns C C C C
4.4.1.4.2 Basic Lateral Force Resisting System Moment Frames AXIAL STRESS CHECK, concrete columns C C C C
4.4.1.5.1 Basic Lateral Force Resisting System Moment Frames PRECAST CONNECTION CHECK C C C C
4.4.1.4.4 Supplemental Lateral Force Resisting System Moment Frames PRESTRESSED FRAME ELEMENTS C C C
4.4.1.4.5 Supplemental Lateral Force Resisting System Moment Frames CAPTIVE COLUMNS (LS) C C C C
4.4.1.4.5 Supplemental Lateral Force Resisting System Moment Frames CAPTIVE COLUMNS (IO) C
4.4.1.4.13 Supplemental Lateral Force Resisting System Moment Frames JOINT REINFORCING C C C C
4.4.1.6.2 Supplemental Lateral Force Resisting System Moment Frames DEFLECTION COMPATIBILITY (LS) C C C C
4.6.4.3 Supplemental Connections Interconnection of Elements CORBEL BEARING C C C
4.6.4.4 Supplemental Connections Interconnection of Elements CORBEL CONNECTIONS C C C

Building:______________________________________________________________________________
Table 2.1 - RM1 (Reinforced Masonry Bearing Walls - Flexible Diaphragms)

ASCE 31
Safety sub-Rating:
Tier 2
4.4.2.4.2 Basic Lateral Force Resisting System Shear Walls REINFORCING STEEL, reinforced masonry C C C
4.4.2.4.4 Supplemental Lateral Force Resisting System Shear Walls PROPORTIONS, reinforced masonry C C C

Building:______________________________________________________________________________
Table 2.1 - RM2 (Reinforced Masonry Bearing Walls - Stiff Diaphragms)

ASCE 31
Safety sub-Rating:
Tier 2
4.4.2.4.2 Basic Lateral Force Resisting System Shear Walls REINFORCING STEEL, reinforced masonry C C C
4.4.2.4.4 Supplemental Lateral Force Resisting System Shear Walls PROPORTIONS, reinforced masonry C C C

Building:______________________________________________________________________________
Table 2.1 - URM (Unreinforced Masonry Bearing Walls - Flexible Diaphragms)

ASCE 31
Safety sub-Rating:
Tier 2
4.4.2.5.2 Supplemental Lateral Force Resisting System Shear Walls PROPORTIONS, URM C C C C
4.4.2.5.3 Supplemental Lateral Force Resisting System Shear Walls MASONRY LAY-UP C C C
4.6.4.5 Supplemental Connections Interconnection of Elements BEAM, GIRDER AND TRUSS SUPPORTS C C C C

Building:______________________________________________________________________________
Table 2.1 - URMA (Unreinforced Masonry Bearing Walls - Stiff Diaphragms)
ASCE 31
Safety sub-Rating:
Tier 2
4.4.2.5.2 Supplemental Lateral Force Resisting System Shear Walls PROPORTIONS, URM C C C C
4.4.2.5.3 Supplemental Lateral Force Resisting System Shear Walls MASONRY LAY-UP C C C
4.6.4.5 Supplemental Connections Interconnection of Elements BEAM, GIRDER AND TRUSS SUPPORTS C C C C
Table 2.2 - Geologic Site Hazards and Foundations

ASCE 31
Geologic/Foundation Sub-rating:
Tier 2
Section Checklist Heading Item 5-Star 4-Star 3-Star 2-Star C NC NA U
4.7.1.1 Geologic Site Hazards and Foundations Geologic Site Hazards LIQUEFACTION C C C
4.7.1.2 Geologic Site Hazards and Foundations Geologic Site Hazards SLOPE FAILURE C C C C
4.7.1.3 Geologic Site Hazards and Foundations Geologic Site Hazards SURFACE FAULT RUPTURE C C C C
4.7.3.1 Geologic Site Hazards and Foundations Capacity of Foundations POLE FOUNDATIONS C C C C
4.7.3.2 Geologic Site Hazards and Foundations Capacity of Foundations OVERTURNING, foundations C C C
4.7.3.3 Geologic Site Hazards and Foundations Capacity of Foundations TIES BETWEEN FOUNDATION ELEMENTS C C C
4.7.3.4 Geologic Site Hazards and Foundations Capacity of Foundations DEEP FOUNDATIONS C
4.7.3.5 Geologic Site Hazards and Foundations Capacity of Foundations SLOPING SITES C
Note: C = Compliance required for the Geologic Site Hazards and Foundations Safety sub-rating shown
Earthquake Performance Rating System: User’s Guide
EARTHQUAKE PERFORMANCE RATING SYSTEM

USER’S GUIDE
Prepared by
The Building Ratings Committee
A sub-committee of the Existing Buildings Committee of
The Structural Engineers Association of Northern California
February 2, 2015
Disclaimer
SEAONC makes the Earthquake Performance Rating System (EPRS) available for use by anyone, subject
to any and all regulations regarding the practice of engineering, architecture, or other professions.
SEAONC does not produce, review, or approve ratings developed with the EPRS. The EPRS user assumes
all risk and responsibility for use of the EPRS. SEAONC assumes no responsibility for the use of the EPRS
by anyone for any purpose.
Copyright
Copyright © 2014 by the Structural Engineers Association of Northern California. All rights reserved.
License to reproduce, unaltered, terms and definitions presented in Table 2.4 in the context of
presenting an EPRS rating is hereby granted.
Acknowledgments
This User’s Guide was written by members of SEAONC’s Building Ratings Committee (BRC), as a
subcommittee of the SEAONC Existing Buildings Committee.
Existing Buildings Committee Chairs (since inception of BRC)

David Ojala, Chair 2014-2015
Brian McDonald, Chair 2012-2013
Marko Schotanus, Chair 2010-2012
Colin Blaney, Chair 2008-2010
Building Ratings Committee

EPRS: User’s Guide Contributors
Marguerite Bello, Chair 2015, Co-Chair 2011 to 2014
Ron Mayes, Co-Chair 2008 to 2014
Doug Hohbach, Co-Chair 2010 to 2011
Mathew Bittleston
Stephen Bono
David Bonowitz
Craig Goings
David McCormick
Evan Reis
The committee acknowledges the following Building Rating Committee members for their comments,
suggestions and assistance:
Colin Blaney
Craig Cole
Jon Heintz
Brian McDonald
David Ojala
Marko Schotanus
Kate Stillwell, Co-Chair 2008 to 2010
SEAONC i February 2,
2015
The committee also acknowledges Fugro Consultants, Inc./Risk Engineering for use of ST-Risk to
estimate repair costs, and the SEAONC Board for their support and endorsement of BRC since its
inception.
SEAONC ii February 2,
2015
Contents
1. The Rating Process: Using the EPRS User’s Guide
1.1. Qualified raters ...........................................................................................................1
1.2. Engineering judgment .................................................................................................1
1.3. Quality Control ............................................................................................................1
2. The Rating System: Essential Features of the EPRS

2.1. Underlying evaluation methodologies........................................................................2
2.2. Seismic hazard ............................................................................................................2
2.3. Rating scope ................................................................................................................2
2.4. Rating definitions ........................................................................................................3
2.5. Translating the underlying evaluation ........................................................................5
2.6. Specialized ratings.......................................................................................................5
3. The Rating Presentation

3.1. Summary presentation ...............................................................................................6
3.2. Full presentation .........................................................................................................7
References ......................................................................................................................................8
Appendix
A. EPRS Background and Discussion ............................................................................... 10
SEAONC iii February 2,

2015

The Earthquake Performance Rating System (EPRS) was developed by the Structural Engineers
Association of Northern California (SEAONC) Building Ratings Committee (BRC), a sub-committee of
SEAONC’s Existing Buildings Committee (EBC), to improve the practice of seismic evaluation and seismic
risk communication. The BRC has developed this User’s Guide to explain the EPRS and to assist users in
producing a rating.
The EPRS is not itself a seismic evaluation methodology. The EPRS is primarily a set of definitions
intended to improve existing engineering practices with respect to communicating earthquake risk to
non-expert stakeholders.
All EPRS users should understand the recommended process for producing an EPRS Rating (Chapter 1),
the essential features of the EPRS (Chapter 2), and the documentation recommended to accompany a
rating (Chapter 3). Each of these topics is discussed further in Appendix A.
Producing an EPRS Rating involves the following basic steps:
1. Complete a seismic evaluation using a separate methodology.
2. Translate the findings of the evaluation into a three-part EPRS Rating.
3. Present the rating.
1.1. Qualified raters

The EPRS, like any building assessment tool, should be applied by qualified individuals. The BRC
developed the EPRS with the expectation that it would be applied primarily by licensed civil or structural
engineers experienced in building evaluation or design. However, the enforcement of qualifications is
left to others. It is expected that clients or other stakeholders might develop and implement specific
qualification measures to suit their own purposes.
1.2. Engineering judgment

All engineering, including seismic evaluation, involves judgment. When deriving an EPRS Rating,
appropriate engineering judgment should be applied during the application of the underlying evaluation
methodology (see Section 2.1), not during the translation of evaluation findings into a rating.
Engineering judgment should only be applied by the engineer who performs the underlying evaluation.
Where applied, judgment should be identified clearly in the supporting documents (see Section 3.2).
1.3. Quality control

In general, each engineer is responsible for the quality of his or her EPRS Rating, just as he or she would
be responsible for the quality of the underlying seismic evaluation. It is expected that clients or other
stakeholders might develop and implement specific quality control measures to suit their own purposes.
SEAONC 1 February 2,
2015

The EPRS is a new tool, but it is related to existing engineering tools, procedures, and professional
practices. Therefore, proper use of the EPRS demands an understanding of what it is intended to do,
how it was developed, and how it is expected to work.
This Chapter briefly notes certain essential features of the EPRS. Further explanation and discussion is
provided in Appendix A and in the listed References (especially SEAONC EBC BRS, 2012).
2.1. Underlying evaluation methodologies

Because the EPRS is not itself a seismic evaluation methodology, it does not replace any methodologies
currently used to evaluate buildings. Rather, the EPRS is intended as a means to supplement a separate,
or underlying, evaluation with a rating that summarizes and simplifies the evaluation findings in
consistent EPRS terms.
It is the intent of the BRC that separate documents, or guides, will be produced to translate the results
of underlying evaluations into EPRS terms. At present, the BRC has developed a complete procedure
(SEAONC EBC BRC, 2015) for the national standard known as ASCE 31-03 (ASCE, 2003).
It is not the intent of the BRC to prohibit the use of any evaluation methodology, including informal,
simplified, or judgment-based methodologies. However, it is the intent that EPRS Ratings would be
derived using consensus procedures specific to each underlying methodology.
2.2. Seismic hazard

EPRS Ratings are intended to correspond to expected performance given a single earthquake with
ground shaking between 75 and 100 percent of that used for the design of a new building of normal
occupancy (Risk Category II) and of similar size and location.
2.3. Rating scope

EPRS Ratings do consider the performance of:
 Nonstructural components
 Fixed equipment specifically identified by the rating engineer
 Adjacent buildings (as falling and pounding hazards only)
EPRS Ratings do not consider the performance of:

 Utilities or infrastructure outside the building footprint
 Externalities that commonly affect repair costs or recovery times
Variations from the basic scope should be identified clearly in the supporting documents (see Section
3.2).
2015
2.4. Rating definitions

Table 2.4 gives the definitions of EPRS Rating levels for each of three rating dimensions: Safety, Repair
Cost, and Recovery. Each level has a symbolic representation (one to five stars), a short name or label
meant to convey the basic meaning of each distinct level, and a longer description intended to explain
the short label in terms closer to those used by engineers and by underlying evaluation methodologies.
EPRS ratings are intended to correspond to expected performance given the seismic hazard described in
Section 2.2.
Table 2.4. EPRS Rating Levels defined for each of three rating dimensions
Safety
 No entrapment.
Expected performance would not lead to conditions commonly associated with earthquake-related entrapment.
 No injuries.
Expected performance would not lead to conditions commonly associated with earthquake-related injuries
requiring more than first aid.
 No death.
 Expected performance would not lead to conditions commonly associated with earthquake-related death.
 Death in isolated locations.
Expected performance in certain locations within or adjacent to the building would lead to conditions known to
be associated with earthquake-related death.
 Death in multiple or widespread locations.
 Expected performance as a whole would lead to multiple or widespread conditions known to be associated with
earthquake-related death.
NR No rating.
The rating methodology does not justify or support a Safety Rating, or no Safety Rating was requested.
Repair Cost
 Within typical operating budget.
 Expected performance would lead to conditions requiring earthquake-related repairs commonly costing less
than 5% of building replacement value.
 Within typical insurance deductible.
Expected performance would lead to conditions requiring earthquake-related repairs commonly costing less
 Within industry Scenario Expected Loss (SEL) limit.
 Repairable damage.
 Irreparable damage.
 Expected performance would lead to conditions requiring earthquake-related repairs commonly costing more
NR No rating.
The rating methodology does not justify or support a Repair Cost Rating, or no Repair Cost Rating was
requested.
2015
Recovery (excluding externalities)

 Within hours.
 Expected performance would support the building’s basic intended functions within hours following the
earthquake.
 Within days.
Expected performance would support the building’s basic intended functions within days following the
earthquake.
 Within weeks.
 Expected performance would support the building’s basic intended functions within weeks following the
earthquake.
 Within months.
 Expected performance would support the building’s basic intended functions within months following the
earthquake.
 Within years.
 Expected performance would not support the building’s basic intended functions within a year following the
earthquake.
NR No rating.
The rating methodology does not justify or support a Recovery Rating, or no Recovery Rating was requested.
Four essential features of the EPRS are reflected in these definitions:
1. Three separate dimensions

Currently, the three dimensions, or components, of an EPRS Rating are Safety, Repair Cost, and
Recovery.
 The Safety Rating addresses the physical health and safety of building occupants during the
earthquake shaking and through egress.
 The Repair Cost Rating addresses the financial loss associated with repairs needed to restore the
pre-earthquake condition.
 The Recovery Rating addresses the time needed to restore the building’s capacity to support the
basic intended functions of its pre-earthquake use and occupancy. Thus, Recovery here means
“functional recovery,” as opposed to reoccupancy or full recovery.
The three dimensions are conceptually independent, so a 3-star Safety Rating, for example, does not
imply and is not implied by a 3-star Repair Cost Rating or a 3-star Recovery Rating.
The BRC encourages presentation of all three dimensions even if No Rating is given for one or two of
them, as this communicates to clients and other stakeholders that earthquake performance is
increasingly about more than safety or economic loss.
2. Five levels within each dimension

The five rating levels are expected to capture practically all of the current building stock. However, it is
neither the intent nor the expectation that the five rating levels represent equal portions of the building
population. Rather, the BRC expects the highest rating levels to be assigned only rarely and only where
the building’s design explicitly sought exceptional performance relative to a typical new building of
normal occupancy.
2015
3. A “No Rating” option

In addition to the five rating levels, each dimension has a “No Rating” option for cases where the
underlying methodology does not justify or support a specific rating. The No Rating option may also be
used where a rating for that dimension is not required for the rating program. (See Section 2.6:
Specialized ratings.)
4. Pragmatic distinctions between levels

Where industry and regulatory precedents exist, the rating levels are set to respect them. Otherwise,
the rating levels are intended to respect the perspective of rating users (owners, tenants, lenders,
regulators), as opposed to more academic or theoretical perspectives of some engineers and
researchers.
2.5. Translating the underlying evaluation

The heart of the rating process is the translation of underlying evaluation results into an EPRS Rating. A
translation procedure should be suited to the underlying evaluation methodology. The more formal the
evaluation methodology, the more detailed and specific the translation procedure will likely be. In all
cases, however, an EPRS rating is a simplified summary of the evaluation findings, so it will almost
always present less certainty and less detail than the underlying evaluation. Translation of evaluation
findings to EPRS Ratings is therefore best thought of as the process of selecting not the perfect
description of expected performance, but the best description from among five available choices.
A detailed translation procedure for any formal, documented evaluation methodology will respect the
eligibility limits, the required scope of work, and the performance assumptions and descriptions given
by the methodology itself. Where the methodology is incomplete as to its performance definitions, the
translation procedure will include the judgment of the BRC or other organizations that develop the
procedure. In these cases the No Rating option may be the best choice.
Currently, the BRC has developed one complete translation procedure, for ASCE 31-03 (SEAONC EBC
BRC, 2015). It is the BRC’s intent that procedures for other evaluation methodologies will be developed
and provided in future guides. Again, however, it is not the intent of the BRC to prohibit the use of any
evaluation methodology, including informal, simplified, or judgment-based methodologies.
2.6. Specialized ratings

By addressing a broad range of potential earthquake performance in three quasi-independent
dimensions, the EPRS is more comprehensive than most specialized evaluation methodologies and
rating systems in use today. Nevertheless, the BRC recognizes that many rating programs will not need
so detailed an approach. While a three-part rating is more complete and in many cases more clear, and
while the BRC encourages engineers to use the EPRS as a recommended practice, specialized ratings
might better serve the immediate needs of certain clients or other stakeholders. Specialized ratings
might involve only some EPRS dimensions and levels and might give certain combinations of rating levels
their own designations.
These specialized ratings can be derived from the more comprehensive EPRS. It is the position of the
BRC that rather than replace the EPRS, specialized ratings should be built from it and linked back to it, so
as to maintain the benefit of a common set of ideas and definitions.
2015

An EPRS Rating should be communicated in a way that supports its goal of clear and effective
communication to non-expert stakeholders. These guidelines for presenting an EPRS Rating to a client or
user are important because the EPRS as a defined system is new, even if its concepts are familiar and
pragmatic.
The BRC anticipates at least two levels of presentation, as outlined in the following sections.
Regardless of presentation type, format, or content, the presentation should not refer to SEAONC in any
way that might give the impression that SEAONC produced or reviewed the rating.
3.1. Summary presentation

When delivering an EPRS Rating to the client, the rating engineer should use the full presentation
described in Section 3.2. The summary presentation is intended merely as an optional (but
recommended) cover sheet, with the expectation that the client might post or forward just the
summary, without all of the supporting documents that are part of a full presentation. The summary
presentation is expected to fit on one side of a standard 8.5x11 sheet.
The BRC recommends that a summary presentation include all of the following:
 A building identifier. This can be the street address, the client’s name for the building, or any
designation that uniquely identifies the building being rated.
 The three-part rating, showing each rating dimension and the symbolic rating (the stars or “NR” for
No Rating; see Table 2.4) for each dimension. It is important that each dimension – Safety, Repair
Cost, Recovery – be shown with its own rating, as opposed to showing a single rating for all three
dimensions together.
 The rating engineer’s seal, which should show the engineer’s name and license number.
 The rating engineer’s signature.
 The full set of EPRS Rating definitions, from Table 2.4, including the symbol, the name, and the
definition of each rating level for each rating dimension.
 The underlying methodology used to derive each dimension’s rating.
In addition, the BRC recommends including the following statement (or something similar, at the rating
engineer’s discretion) for completeness (see also Sections 2.2 and 2.3):
These ratings correspond to expected performance given a single earthquake with

ground shaking between 75 and 100 percent of that used for the design of a new
building of normal occupancy (Risk Category II) and of similar size and location. The
2015
rating does not address the performance of certain contents, utilities, infrastructure, or
geologic conditions outside the building footprint or lot. See the EPRS User’s Guide for a
full description of the rating scope.
3.2. Full presentation

The full presentation represents the BRC’s recommendation for the minimum amount of information
that a rating engineer should deliver to the client.
The BRC recommends that a full presentation include all of the following:
 A summary presentation, or all of the information required for a summary presentation, as

described in Section 3.1.
 Any summary or report form contractually required by the client or the organization or agency
implementing the EPRS.
 The EPRS translation. This is a report showing how the EPRS Rating was derived from the underlying
evaluation. Where a formal translation procedure exists, this report might take the form of that
procedure, with any flowcharts or worksheets provided there.
 The underlying evaluation report. The format and content of the underlying evaluation report will
vary with each methodology. In general, a report should be sufficient to show how its results were
produced and where the judgment of the evaluating engineer, if any, was applied (see Section 1.2).
The BRC recommends including a summary of the underlying evaluation showing the results used as
inputs to the EPRS translation procedure.
2015
References
Almufti, I. and Willford, M., 2013. REDi Rating System: Resilience-based Earthquake Design Initiative for
the Next Generation of Buildings (version 1.0), ARUP, October.
ASCE, 2003. Seismic Evaluation of Existing Buildings (ASCE/SEI 31-03), American Society of Civil
Engineers.
ASCE, 2006. Seismic Rehabilitation of Existing Buildings (ASCE/SEI 41-06), American Society of Civil
Engineers.
ASCE, 2012. Seismic Evaluation and Retrofit of Existing Buildings: Pre-publication Edition for Public
Comment and Final Review (ASCE/SEI 41-13), American Society of Civil Engineers.
ASTM, 1999. E 2026 – 07, “Standard Guide for the Estimation of Building Damageability in Earthquakes,”
1999, American Society for Testing and Materials.
ASTM, 2007. 2557-07, “Standard Practice for Probably Maximum Loss (PML) Evaluations for Earthquake
Due-Diligence Assessments”, 2007, American Society for Testing and Materials.
ATC, 2011. ATC-71-2, “Proceedings for a Workshop on a Rating System for the Earthquake Performance
of Buildings,” May 2011, Applied Technology Council.
ATC, 1997. ATC-20, “Procedures for Post-Earthquake Evaluation of Buildings,” 1997, Applied Technology
Council.
Bonowitz, D., 2011. “Resilience Criteria for Seismic Evaluation of Existing Buildings,” Report to Structural
Engineers Association of Northern California, August 5.
FEMA, 2002. Rapid Visual Screening of Buildings for Potential Seismic Hazards: A Handbook, Second
Edition (FEMA 154), Federal Emergency Management Agency, March.
ICC, 2012. International Existing Building Code, International Code Council.
Risk Engineering, Inc., 2012. ST-RISK, www.st-risk.com.
SEAONC Existing Buildings Committee, Building Ratings Subcommittee, 2008. “Report Cards for Buildings:
A Proposed Rating System for Earthquake Performance,” Proceedings, 77th Annual Convention, Structural
SEAONC Existing Buildings Committee, Building Ratings Subcommittee, 2009. “Report Cards for Buildings:
A Proposed Rating System for Earthquake Performance,” in Proceedings of the 2009 ATC&SEI Conference
on Improving the Seismic Performance of Existing Buildings and Other Structures, San Francisco, December
9-11.
2015
SEAONC Existing Buildings Committee, Building Ratings Subcommittee, 2011. “SEAONC Rating System for
the Expected Earthquake Performance of Buildings,” Proceedings, 80th Annual Convention, Structural
SEAONC Existing Buildings Committee, Building Ratings Subcommittee, 2012. “SEAONC Earthquake
Performance Rating System: Translating ASCE 31-03,” SEAOC 2012 Convention Proceedings, Structural
SEAONC Existing Buildings Committee, Building Ratings Committee, 2015 (in review). “Guide for deriving
an EPRS Rating from an ASCE 31-03 Evaluation,” Structural Engineers Association of California.
2015
Appendix
Appendix A. EPRS Background and Discussion
2015
Appendix A. EPRS Background and Discussion

The following sections provide background and discussion regarding the development of the EPRS and
the intent and expectations of the BRC regarding its use. The User’s Guide provisions are shown in
boxes followed by the corresponding commentary.

The Earthquake Performance Rating System (EPRS) was developed by the Structural Engineers
Association of Northern California (SEAONC) Building Ratings Committee (BRC), a sub-committee of
SEAONC’s Existing Buildings Committee (EBC), to improve the practice of seismic evaluation and seismic
risk communication. The BRC has developed this User’s Guide to explain the EPRS and to assist users in
producing a rating.
In 2006, responding to a request from the Structural Engineers Association of Northern California
(SEAONC) Board of Directors, the SEAONC Existing Buildings Committee agreed to form a subcommittee
to study the feasibility of, and possibly to develop, an Earthquake Performance Rating System (EPRS).
The subcommittee would later become known as the Building Ratings Committee (BRC).
The BRC completed its feasibility study in January 2008 and presented a paper summarizing the results
at the 2008 SEAOC Convention (SEAONC EBC BRS, 2008). Further progress was presented at a 2009
conference sponsored by the Applied Technology Council and ASCE’s Structural Engineering Institute
and at the 2011 and 2012 SEAOC Conventions (SEAONC EBC BRS, 2009; 2011; 2012). In March 2011, the
BRC collaborated with ATC to hold a workshop for building owners, investors, and policy-makers
regarding the utility of an EPRS with the goal of hearing from potential users about the scope and
structure of a marketable rating system.
The objective of the EPRS – and of any system that rates the earthquake performance of buildings – is to
communicate earthquake risk not only to non-engineers, but specifically to “non-expert” stakeholders
who might not even be experts in other aspects of building design, construction, or regulation. The
ultimate goal is to reduce earthquake risk by providing stakeholders with practical information they
generally have not had.
By “stakeholders,” the BRC means not only the client who commissions an EPRS rating, but all those who
have an interest in a building’s earthquake risk – developers, buyers, sellers, and tenants of a building,
as well as regulators, emergency managers, and policy makers. Thus, the audience for the system
includes a broad and general population, much of which knows little about earthquake risk. The BRC
expects users will find the EPRS particularly valuable for comparing buildings and for summarizing
technical evaluation reports.
The EPRS is not itself a seismic evaluation methodology. The EPRS is primarily a set of definitions
intended to improve existing engineering practices with respect to communicating earthquake risk to
non-expert stakeholders.
As explained further in Section 2.1, the EPRS works by applying a rating to a separate seismic evaluation
done with any formal or informal evaluation methodology. Since the EPRS is not itself an evaluation
methodology, it does not replace any of the tools or methodologies engineers currently use to evaluate
2015
buildings. Instead, the EPRS repackages the findings of those tools and methodologies, translating them
into consistent, comparable, jargon-free terms. In this way, the EPRS represents a SEAONC-
recommended best practice for presenting the results of a seismic evaluation in a way that is concise,
consistent, complete, and beneficial to a non-expert client.
“Non-expert” does not mean simply “non-engineer.” Rather, the term is intended specifically to include
non-engineer stakeholders who might never have worked with an engineer before. While the EPRS
might prove useful to large institutions, corporations, and public agencies, most of those organizations
already routinely engage engineers who can advise them directly, often taking advantage of state-of-
the-art engineering tools. They generally do not need the simplification and summarization provided by
an EPRS rating.
The BRC had in mind a number of cases of “non-expert” stakeholders who might benefit from the EPRS,
including:
 Buyers or leasers of small buildings or tenant spaces, including residential properties, for which
seismic evaluations are rarely available at the time of sale or lease. For these consumers, who
might not have even considered earthquake risk otherwise, a rating to help compare one
property to another in broad terms is perhaps more useful than a detailed evaluation relative to
a specific performance objective.
 Institutions or organizations that already engage engineers to perform seismic evaluations of

multiple buildings or portfolios, but need a means to classify or compare those evaluations and
to present the summarized evaluation results to decision-makers or other stakeholders. For
these organizations, the EPRS provides a consistent basis for grouping diverse buildings in
pragmatic ways (a basis, the BRC feels, that is preferable to classification systems used in the
past by various public agencies).
 Stakeholders who already rely on simplified presentations of seismic evaluation findings, such as
estimates of Probable Maximum Loss, but who might not be well-served by the current state of
practice. For this subset of potential EPRS users, quality control (of both the rating and the
underlying evaluation) might be as important as the technical details of the rating system (ATC,
2011).
1.1. Qualified raters

The EPRS, like any building assessment tool, should be applied by qualified individuals. The BRC
developed the EPRS with the expectation that it would be applied primarily by licensed civil or structural
engineers experienced in building evaluation or design. However, the enforcement of qualifications is
left to others. It is expected that clients or other stakeholders might develop and implement specific
qualification measures to suit their own purposes.
The BRC expects the EPRS to be useful in any area with moderate to high seismicity. Even so, the BRC
developed the EPRS with California practice in mind.
The BRC recommends the rating engineer have a PE or SE license. Although certain new buildings may
be lawfully designed by architects or contractors, seismic evaluation of potentially obsolete or
inadequate conditions requires different expertise. In addition, the rating engineer should be qualified
2015
to design the building being rated. For example, since an SE license is required to design California
schools and hospitals, the BRC recommends the same qualifications for evaluating and rating those
buildings. Though there are no regulations explicitly stating licensure requirements for rating engineers,
the California Code of Regulations Title 16, Division 5, Section 415, does state that a licensed
professional engineer may practice engineering “only in the field or fields in which he/she is by
education and/or experience fully competent and proficient.” A requirement for higher credentials is
left to the discretion of the client or other stakeholders.
The EPRS rating engineer is also responsible for the underlying evaluation. Programs to produce ratings
for past evaluations might need programmatic accommodations for those cases where the rating
engineer is different from the engineer who performed the underlying evaluation.
1.2. Engineering judgment

All engineering, including seismic evaluation, involves judgment. When deriving an EPRS Rating,
appropriate engineering judgment should be applied during the application of the underlying evaluation
methodology (see Section 2.1), not during the translation of evaluation findings into a rating.
Engineering judgment should only be applied by the engineer who performs the underlying evaluation.
Where applied, judgment should be identified clearly in the supporting documents (see Section 3.2).
The intent of this provision is to respect the role of judgment in engineering and to guide its use to
ensure generally consistent ratings by different engineers. Excessive or faulty judgment is a matter for
quality control (see Section 1.3), but its existence does not change the fact that judgment is part of
engineering.
The second sentence, about applying judgment during the evaluation but not during the rating, applies
mostly to evaluation methods for which a detailed translation procedure is used. The intent is that if the
translation results in a questionable rating, the engineer should not simply adjust the rating “by
judgment,” but should review the evaluation to find why it led to such a rating. It is more appropriate to
apply judgment to the detailed evaluation process than to the simplifying rating process.
1.3. Quality control

In general, each engineer is responsible for the quality of his or her EPRS Rating, just as he or she would
be responsible for the quality of the underlying seismic evaluation. It is expected that clients or other
stakeholders might develop and implement specific quality control measures to suit their own purposes.
Quality control of the rating should follow the quality control provisions that apply to the underlying
evaluation. Additional quality control measures will depend on the rating program established by the
clients or stakeholders. These measures can be incentivized, institutionally imposed, one-sided, or
mandatory.
2015

2.1. Underlying evaluation methodologies
Because the EPRS is not itself a seismic evaluation methodology, it does not replace any methodologies
currently used to evaluate buildings. Rather, the EPRS is intended as a means to supplement a separate,
or underlying, evaluation with a rating that summarizes and simplifies the evaluation findings in
consistent EPRS terms.
It is the intent of the BRC that separate documents, or guides, will be produced to translate the results
of underlying evaluations into EPRS terms. At present, the BRC has developed a complete procedure
(SEAONC EBC BRC, 2015) for the national standard known as ASCE 31-03 (ASCE, 2003).
It is not the intent of the BRC to prohibit the use of any evaluation methodology, including informal,
simplified, or judgment-based methodologies. However, it is the intent that EPRS Ratings would be
derived using consensus procedures specific to each underlying methodology.
The underlying evaluation comes before the EPRS rating and generally contains more detail than the
rating by itself. Therefore, it is the intent of the BRC to allow the engineer, the client, and other
stakeholders the same discretion in choosing an evaluation methodology that they would have even if a
rating were not being produced.
However, the selected evaluation methodology can affect or limit the EPRS rating. The BRC expects that
some methodologies might not support or justify the full range of EPRS ratings. In general, the more
engineering effort involved in the evaluation, the more likely it is that the full range of EPRS ratings
might apply. By the same token, an extremely thorough evaluation might be able to make distinctions in
performance that the simplified ratings cannot make.
Currently, the BRC has produced a translation procedure for one evaluation methodology, ASCE 31-03.
(See Section 2.5 for further discussion of translation procedures.) Other methodologies that the BRC
expects to see translated in the future include:
 ASCE 41-13
 FEMA P-58
 FEMA 154
 Procedures used to generate Probable Maximum Loss estimates
 Building Code provisions for new construction
 California Seismic Safety Commission checklists
 Low-cost methodologies based on drawing review and site observations.
2.2. Seismic hazard

EPRS Ratings are intended to correspond to expected performance given a single earthquake with
ground shaking between 75 and 100 percent of that used for the design of a new building of normal
occupancy (Risk Category II) and of similar size and location.
The performance descriptions given in Section 2.4 are meaningful only when they are associated with a
presumed earthquake hazard level (or ground shaking intensity). That is, for a building labeled “safe,”
the question remains: “Safe in what earthquake?” Section 2.2 addresses this issue in a way that the BRC
2015
feels balances the interests of rating engineers (EPRS rating producers) with those of the non-expert
clients and stakeholders for whose benefit the EPRS is intended (EPRS rating consumers). In selecting
the hazard described in Section 2.2, the BRC dealt with four questions:
Should an EPRS rating reflect a more extreme condition or a more routine condition?
Both extreme and frequent events, as well as events in between, are commonly used in seismic risk
assessment. In engineering terms, the question can be restated as: Should an EPRS rating be associated
with an extreme event like the Maximum Credible Earthquake used in current building codes; or with a
routine event more familiar (and perhaps more relevant) to typical stakeholders, such as shaking with 50
percent probability of exceedance in a 50-year building life (73-year return period); or with a traditional
“design basis” event, such as shaking with a 10 percent probability of exceedance over 50 years (475-
year return period)?
The BRC decided that a seismic hazard between the routine and the extreme would be most appropriate
for a rating intended to make distinctions among the wide range of typical buildings. With an extreme
event, nearly all existing buildings would be rated poorly, and only the best would be distinguished.
With a routine event, nearly all buildings would appear equally satisfactory, and only the very worst
would be distinguished.
Should the “in between” seismic hazard try to match standards used for new buildings, existing
buildings, or something else?
The BRC recognizes the advantages inherent in selecting a seismic hazard with some precedent in
current codes, standards, and programs. One advantage is that it can facilitate communication to say
that the EPRS seismic hazard is the same as a hazard already familiar to stakeholders. Also, if the hazard
associated with an EPRS rating matches that used by the underlying evaluation, then the translation
from evaluation to rating will not have to adjust for differences in presumed hazard.
Between routine and extreme hazards, several such precedents exist. Many engineers (incorrectly) think
of 2/3*MCE, as used in current building codes, as a “design basis” seismic demand, in part because it is
close in value to its probabilistic code precursor, a hazard with 10 percent probability of exceedance in
50 years (475-year return period). Either of these thus has strong precedents. The same may be said,
however, for values long used for evaluation of existing buildings, such as 75 percent of forces used for
design of new buildings, known as “reduced” forces in the IEBC model code. A similar option is that used
in California Building Code provisions for state-owned buildings: a hazard with 20 percent probability of
exceedance over 50 years (225-year return period), now defined in the ASCE 41-13 national standard as
the BSE-1E hazard level. Similarly, the financial industry often considers risks with a 0.5 percent annual
probability of exceedance (190-year return period). Any of these may be reasonably considered an “in
between” hazard, neither extreme nor routine.
Since none of these is more technically correct than the others, the BRC decided it would be most
advantageous to reference the values used in current building codes for new construction (2/3*MCE,
also known in ASCE 41-13 as BSE-1N) and standards for existing buildings (BSE-1E). The goal is to
accommodate the most commonly used “in between” underlying evaluation methodologies. ASCE 41-
13, for example, allows the use of its Tier 1 checklist procedure only with a hazard level like BSE-1E, not
BSE-1N. (ASCE 31-03 also intended that its checklists should be used with a reduced hazard, but it
approached the problem in a different way. It used the same hazard as the code for new construction,
but it built a 75 percent factor into its acceptance criteria.)
2015
Where the BSE-1N and BSE-1E values are reasonably close to each other, the BRC concluded that the
nature of the EPRS ratings as simplifications based on pragmatic distinctions can accommodate some
variation in the seismic hazard used for evaluation. Because the EPRS ratings make distinctions using
broad categories of performance, different ratings should result more from differences in expected
damage modes (for example, falling hazard v. collapse, or nonstructural damage v. structural) than from
small numerical differences in demand-capacity ratios.
Where the BSE-1N and BSE-1E values are not close to each other, then the goal of accommodating both
hazard levels presents a problem. Table A1 shows the BSE-1N and BSE-1E values at the centers of four
California cities. The rightmost column shows that in some locations, BSE-1E spectral accelerations are
within 30 percent or so of BSE-1N values. But for many locations, the two values differ significantly –
enough that even for EPRS purposes they no longer represent similar evaluation criteria. The BRC
therefore decided to define the EPRS seismic hazard to encompass both BSE-1N and BSE-1E as “design
basis” hazard levels, as long as the BSE-1E values are within the traditional 75 percent of BSE-1N. (For
related reasons, the ASCE 41 committee is currently considering a similar floor on BSE-1E.)
Thus, the text of Section 2.2 cites the hazard level used for design of new buildings (BSE-1N) and
accommodates evaluation methodologies that use reduced forces down to 75 percent of that
benchmark.
Section 2.2 could as easily have referred to ground shaking up to 1.33 times that used traditionally to
evaluate existing buildings. But since the evaluation standards have more recently changed, it was
decided, for convenience and textual clarity, to link the EPRS seismic hazard to the building code design
level. Doing so does not presume, however, that stakeholders will have an understanding of what that
code design basis is. On the contrary, many non-experts tend to ask about potential building
performance on a scenario basis, or in terms of Richter magnitude. The description in Section 2.2 thus at
least provides the rating engineer with an opportunity to explain that seismic evaluations, and EPRS
ratings, are based on site-specific hazards, not scenarios or past events.
One potential criticism of allowing the “75 to 100 percent” range is that it appears to be holding new
buildings and existing buildings to the same standard, even while allowing existing buildings to be
evaluated with reduced loads. New buildings are better, the argument goes, so they should receive
higher ratings. The rebuttal to this argument flows, again, from the recognition that an EPRS rating is a
simplification with broad categories, and its purpose is not to make fine distinctions. Within a rating
level, some buildings will be nearer the top and some nearer the bottom, but that is the nature of a
rating system with a small number of bins. The question is how to define the boundaries of those bins;
the EPRS defines boundaries in terms of large pragmatic differences in expected modes of behavior, not
based on the detailed numerical calculations performed as part of some underlying evaluation
methodologies. Further, the rating levels defined in Section 2.4 make no mention of a building’s age or
code compliance; the EPRS also does not include importance factors, planning and zoning limits, or
other requirements imposed on new buildings. Thus, the criteria used to rate a building with the EPRS
need not match the criteria required by law for its initial design; in short, the building code and the EPRS
have different goals. If a new building could receive a higher EPRS rating by using reduced seismic loads
consistent with the seismic hazard described in Section 2.2, instead of code-mandated design loads, the
rating engineer is free to take that approach.
2015
ASCE 41-13
http://earthquake.usgs.gov/designmaps/us/application.php
Site Class B Site Class D Ratio of 1E to 1N
City
Lat,Lon Freq BSE-2N BSE-1N BSE-1E BSE-2N BSE-1N BSE-1E SCB SCD
PGA 0.270 0.180 0.108 0.340 0.227 0.172 60% 76%
Sacramento
5 Hz 0.675 0.450 0.271 0.851 0.567 0.429 60% 76%
38.58157, -121.49440
1 Hz 0.294 0.196 0.123 0.532 0.355 0.284 63% 80%
PGA 0.600 0.400 0.345 0.600 0.400 0.398 86% 100%
San Francisco
5 Hz 1.500 1.000 0.862 1.500 1.000 0.996 86% 100%
37.77928, -122.41927
1 Hz 0.629 0.419 0.327 0.944 0.629 0.571 78% 91%
PGA 0.488 0.326 0.126 0.494 0.329 0.195 39% 59%
San Diego
5 Hz 1.221 0.814 0.314 1.235 0.823 0.487 39% 59%
32.71742, -117.16277
1 Hz 0.470 0.313 0.134 0.719 0.479 0.304 43% 63%
PGA 0.979 0.653 0.342 0.979 0.653 0.396 52% 61%
Los Angeles
5 Hz 2.447 1.631 0.856 2.447 1.631 0.991 52% 61%
34.05368, -118.24270
1 Hz 0.858 0.572 0.305 1.287 0.858 0.546 53% 64%
Table A1. Spectral acceleration values for BSE-2N, BSE-1N, and BSE-1E hazard levels
Should the EPRS require underlying evaluations to use a specific hazard definition?
This question is related to the previous one, and the basic answer follows from that discussion: If the
EPRS seismic hazard already accommodates a range of values, surely it would also accommodate a
range of hazard definitions. But one might argue that the seismic hazard would be better if it were
consistently probabilistic, or entirely code-consistent, or explicitly the same as the BSE-1E and BSE-1N
hazards defined in ASCE 41-13.
The BRC decided that within the range of hazards described in Section 2.2, it is not necessary to require
evaluations be done with specific defined hazards. Instead, the BRC decided that it is better to respect
the engineer’s and the client’s discretion in selecting an appropriate evaluation methodology. Thus, an
underlying evaluation may use the BSE-1E, or the code’s 2/3*MCE, or the 475-year return period
favored by loss estimation standards, or a suite of ground motions, or any other hazard within the range
contemplated by Section 2.2.
Should the EPRS reflect a multi-point performance objective?

The concern here is that two buildings might perform about the same in a “design basis” event but
much differently in a larger event like an MCE. ASCE 41 addressed this concern by defining a two-point
performance objective involving evaluation or retrofit design calculations at two different hazard levels.
The two-point objective (called the BSO in ASCE 41-06 and the BPOE or BPON in ASCE 41-13) has been
adopted by some codes and institutional policies, including the federal recommended practice known as
RP 8.
The BRC decided, however, that a multi-point objective is not necessary for the EPRS, and could be
detrimental, for three reasons. First, it would over-complicate the rating, which is already more
complicated than traditional risk presentations by virtue of its three dimensions. Understanding that a
rating is a simplification that necessarily omits certain distinctions between buildings, the BRC finds that
an EPRS rating will do its job best by communicating the expected performance for the type of event
described in Section 2.2 only. One might argue that the EPRS would lose credibility if two buildings with
the same rating perform differently in an extreme event. But the fact that the rating explicitly does not
2015
address extreme events covers that possibility; clients or stakeholders who also need to consider the
extreme event may of course do so with their underlying evaluation. Also, if two similarly rated buildings
performing differently in an extreme event creates a credibility problem, it is little different from two
differently-rated buildings performing the same in a small or routine event. An inability to cover every
contingency is the price of the simplification that an EPRS rating provides.
Second, requiring the evaluation to consider more of the hazard curve could create logistical problems
that would reduce the accessibility of the EPRS to the clients and stakeholders for which it is intended.
Additional rules and provisions would have to be developed to identify those cases where a two-part
objective is necessary: Would those rules distinguish only collapse-prone structures, or also geologic
hazards that might be worse in an extreme event, or financial losses? Whatever the answers, the rules
would inevitably raise the cost of obtaining an EPRS rating. Just as important, requiring a multi-part
evaluation would rule out the use of many existing evaluation methods that presume only a single
hazard.
Third, it is not even clear that a multi-part evaluation is needed by clients or stakeholders. Engineers
would like their clients to understand that extreme events are possible, and some organizations, such as
city or county emergency planners, might need to be thinking about those cases. But that does not
mean they need the simplified EPRS ratings to cover that ground. On the contrary, many private building
owners and tenants are actually more concerned about the smaller, more likely event. To address their
concerns, one could argue that a rating should supplement the design-basis hazard not with an extreme
hazard but with a routine one. The BRC decided to limit the EPRS scope to the “in between” hazard
Having considered these questions, the BRC settled on the language in Section 2.2. While this hazard is
intended to accommodate some variation in engineering practice, the implication is that any evaluation
done with a hazard outside the stipulated range will need to account for that difference during the
translation from underlying evaluation to EPRS rating.
Section 2.2 also refers to “normal occupancy,” what the building code refers to as Risk Category II. This
means that EPRS ratings are given independent of a building’s actual use or occupancy as understood by
the building code. A hospital or fire station, for example, would be assigned to Risk Category IV and
would be subject to higher design forces involving an “importance factor.” The EPRS would rate these
buildings just like any other building; their greater importance would be reflected in a policy choice to
require a better rating. This is essentially the same approach taken by performance-based evaluation
and retrofit standards such as ASCE 41-13.
In the end, Section 2.2 clarifies that it is necessary to describe the seismic hazard to which the EPRS
applies, while it is still possible to accommodate variations without having to say that some evaluation
methodologies are “correct” or appropriate while others are not.
2015
2.3. Rating scope

EPRS Ratings do consider the performance of:
 Nonstructural components
 Fixed equipment specifically identified by the rating engineer
 Adjacent buildings (as falling and pounding hazards only)
EPRS Ratings do not consider the performance of:

 Utilities or infrastructure outside the building footprint
 Externalities that commonly affect repair costs or recovery times
Variations from the basic scope should be identified clearly in the supporting documents (see Section
3.2).
The purpose of Section 2.3 is to make clear which parts of the property are considered by, and thus are
able to affect, the EPRS rating. For purposes of communicating risk to clients or other stakeholders, the
two lists can be used to call attention to aspects of potential damage that either are or are not
addressed by the rating process.
The rating scope will not always match the scope of the underlying evaluation. Where the underlying
evaluation considers issues beyond those covered in Section 2.3, those issues may be ignored by the
EPRS rating. Where the underlying evaluation does not consider one or more items within the EPRS
scope, the rating engineer will need to consider those in some fashion in order to provide the EPRS
rating. Translation procedures are expected to provide prompts or specific instructions to ensure
consideration of the full EPRS scope.
“Fixed equipment specifically identified by the rating engineer” is intended to provide an opportunity for
the rating engineer to address certain nonstructural components, often tenant-provided and installed,
that are often excluded from typical evaluation methodologies but might nevertheless have significant
impact on Repair Cost and Recovery, if not on Safety. Examples might include function-critical
equipment like manufacturing equipment or rooftop communications equipment. For items like these,
the actual scope can only be described in concept; confirming the actual scope for any building is the
responsibility of the rating engineer.
“Non-building structures associated with and immediately adjacent to the building” is intended to
include structurally separate elements that are nevertheless clearly part of the facility, as opposed to a
neighboring building. Examples include retaining walls, covered walkways, carports, or pedestrian
bridges.
“Externalities that commonly affect repair costs and recovery times” refers to conditions outside the
building owners’ and tenants’ control, such as the availability of utility services or roads, the overall
safety and recovery of the neighborhood, etc. If externalities like these were considered by the EPRS,
2015
they could greatly affect the Recovery dimension of an EPRS rating (and to a lesser extent the Repair
Cost rating as well). In fact, the effects of externalities on recovery times can often be far greater than
the effects of direct damage sustained by the building being rated. One might therefore argue that by
excluding externalities from the scope, the EPRS is overlooking a critical aspect of post-earthquake
recovery and might even be giving clients and other stakeholders a false impression of expected
performance.
Nevertheless, the BRC decided that as long as the scope of the EPRS is clear to users (which is why
externalities are explicitly noted in the heading of the Recovery section of Table 2.4), it would still be
beneficial for ratings to provide some information about how the building’s own deficiencies might
affect recovery. Otherwise, any evaluation or rating of expected recovery time would require work well
outside the scope of normal seismic evaluations. Without that additional costly work, No Rating would
be the only defensible choice for the Recovery rating. As recovery time becomes better defined and
more commonly assessed, it will be important to evaluate and design for externality effects. At present,
as recovery evaluation is new and still rare, the BRC decided to at least use the EPRS as a way of raising
the issue to clients and stakeholders. Where the rating engineer feels that a Recovery rating excluding
externalities would not properly serve his or her client, No Rating remains a useful option. (For more on
how to account for externalities, see Almufti and Willford, 2013.)
Related to externalities are conditions that delay initiation of post-earthquake repairs, such as post-
earthquake inspections, access to financing, engineering review or re-design, contractor mobilization
and permitting, long lead-time items, etc. Almufti and Willford (2013) refer to these as impeding factors.
Mostly these factors are expected to affect recovery time. The EPRS does not address them explicitly.
Given the indefinite EPRS rating levels for Recovery, the BRC expects that where damage is low enough
to merit one of the better Recovery ratings, delays due to impeding factors will be small anyway. Where
the damage would lead to a worse Recovery rating, delays due to impeding factors will already be within
the uncertainty of the rating definition. Thus, while these impeding factors are probably addressed
implicitly by the EPRS, they are not explicitly listed as within the current EPRS scope.
2.4. Rating definitions

Table 2.4 gives the definitions of EPRS Rating levels for each of three rating dimensions: Safety, Repair
Cost, and Recovery. Each level has a symbolic representation (one to five stars), a short name or label
meant to convey the basic meaning of each distinct level, and a longer description intended to explain
the short label in terms closer to those used by engineers and by underlying evaluation methodologies.
EPRS ratings are intended to correspond to expected performance given the seismic hazard described in
Section 2.2.
Table 2.4. EPRS Rating Levels defined for each of three rating dimensions
The symbolic stars and the short labels for each rating level are intended to make it easier for non-
experts to discuss the expected performance without becoming mired in engineering jargon.
Nevertheless, the BRC understands that engineers (or their clients or other stakeholders) might be
uncomfortable with the short labels being used out of context or without the longer description that
follows. The BRC therefore expects that some engineers might choose to convey ratings without the
short labels. It is the BRC’s intent, however, that the longer descriptions should not be altered or
omitted when conveying EPRS ratings.
2015
Section 2.4 notes that the longer descriptions are “closer to” the terms used by engineers and by
underlying evaluation methodologies. Even so, the EPRS terminology is not identical to language found
in any code or standard because even these long descriptions are intended to be adaptable to a variety
of methodologies.
The construction of the long descriptions is important and intentional. Each begins with “Expected
performance would …,” a construction intended to reflect the fact that assigning a rating is a two-step
process. The first step is to determine the expected performance of the building. The second step is to
extrapolate or translate that performance into terms of safety, repair cost, or recovery time.
Only the first step is something engineers are generally trained to do. The second step is something that
an evaluation methodology might do, but does not involve structural analysis. Evaluation methodologies
that take this second step and quantify losses (in addition to predicting structural response) might be
able to offer a more specific numerical performance prediction than the EPRS rating definitions, but
many evaluation methodologies do not do this directly. It is for this reason that the rating definitions use
phrasing such as “commonly associated with …” instead of phrasing that suggests a calculated answer,
such as “likely to result in …”. Without fragility curves that relate injuries, costs, and downtime to each
predictable pattern of structural or nonstructural damage, the BRC decided that the wording of the
rating definitions should not imply (or make the rating engineer responsible for) such a calculation.
The term “expected” sometimes denotes a probability greater than 50 percent. In the rating definitions,
however, “expected performance” is not meant to imply any specific probability of occurrence or
exceedance. Rather, it is meant to reflect whatever conclusion the underlying evaluation methodology,
together with the evaluating engineer’s judgment, would reach. In some cases this will be qualitative (a
component is braced or is not) and in others it will be quantitative (a demand-capacity ratio is less than
1.0 or it is not). In any case, it is not the intent of the BRC to impose a probabilistic meaning where the
underlying evaluation did not provide one.
While the term “expected” is not included in the short labels, it is nevertheless implicit in them, as the
short labels should be understood only as convenient placeholders for the longer descriptions.
1. Three separate dimensions

Currently, the three dimensions, or components, of an EPRS Rating are Safety, Repair Cost, and
Recovery.
 The Safety Rating addresses the physical health and safety of building occupants during the
earthquake shaking and through egress.
The Safety Rating does not directly address the needs of disabled, differently abled, or especially
vulnerable occupants such as children, the elderly, or the ill. Considerations for special occupant groups
should be reflected either by judgment in the underlying evaluation or through the policy that sets a
target or acceptable rating.
 The Repair Cost Rating addresses the financial loss associated with repairs needed to restore the
pre-earthquake condition.
2015
The Repair Cost rating is different from simple loss, as it tries to account for actual expense to make
repairs, not the paper loss of equity. The repair cost is intended to reflect the full repair cost, not the
insured cost. It is not intended to include the cost of triggered upgrades or voluntary improvements.
Because repair cost is expressed in terms of replacement cost, it does not include premiums for historic,
archaic, unique, or otherwise irreplaceable construction.
 The Recovery Rating addresses the time needed to restore the building’s capacity to support the
basic intended functions of its pre-earthquake use and occupancy. Thus, Recovery here means
“functional recovery,” as opposed to reoccupancy or full recovery.
In general, functional recovery means the owners’ and tenants’ ability to resume normal pre-earthquake
operations, which can vary with occupancy. However, because the EPRS cannot consider most contents,
functional recovery is essentially limited to the capacity of the building – the structure and its
permanent nonstructural components – to support those functions. Functional recovery does not
require the repair of cosmetic damage and does not require full use of all of a building’s non-essential
functions.
Functional recovery generally requires legal occupancy, which might involve appropriate egress, fire
safety, etc., but the EPRS does not explicitly account for these issues. Rather, the EPRS effectively
assumes that some or all of these requirements might be waived during an emergency period or might
be provided on an interim basis by temporary or programmatic means. Because the EPRS does not
account for externalities such as utility outages, the Recovery rating effectively assumes that utility
service will be restored by the time recovery-critical building damage is repaired. (See Section 2.3 for
discussion of externalities and the EPRS scope.)
Functional recovery is contrasted with reoccupancy, at which time the building may be safely occupied,
a state often represented by an ATC 20 “green tag” and sometimes by the term “shelter-in-place.” By
contrast, functional recovery means a usable space, not merely a safe-to-occupy space. Functional
recovery is also contrasted with full recovery, at which time even cosmetic damage is repaired and even
non-essential functions are restored. (Bonowitz, 2011.)
The three dimensions are conceptually independent, so a 3-star Safety Rating, for example, does not
imply and is not implied by a 3-star Repair Cost Rating or a 3-star Recovery Rating.
Section 2.4 intentionally shows the three dimensions in separate tables to reinforce the idea that they
are independent in concept and presentation. The three dimensions are not fully independent,
however, because all are derived from the same expected or predicted damage patterns. The
dimensions might be less independent for some methodologies than for others, since most
methodologies explicitly address only one or two of the performance dimensions. In such cases, a
translation procedure might use the results of a safety evaluation, for example, to roughly predict repair
cost or recovery time.
The BRC encourages presentation of all three dimensions even if No Rating is given for one or two of
them, as this communicates to clients and other stakeholders that earthquake performance is
increasingly about more than safety or economic loss.
2015
The BRC encourages ratings that are clear on all three dimensions (see also Chapter 3). The intent is to
avoid the situation where a client interested in economic loss or minimal business disruption
nevertheless receives only safety-related information because he or she did not know to ask for a more
complete scope of work from the evaluating engineer. The three-part rating is intended to have the
effect of anticipating the broader question even when it is not explicitly asked.
2. Five levels within each dimension

The five rating levels are expected to capture practically all of the current building stock. However, it is
neither the intent nor the expectation that the five rating levels represent equal portions of the building
population. Rather, the BRC expects the highest rating levels to be assigned only rarely and only where
the building’s design explicitly sought exceptional performance relative to a typical new building of
normal occupancy.
The BRC attempted to develop rating scales that would capture a wide range of performance without
giving an undue impression of precision. Usability and appropriate simplicity were also considerations,
with the understanding that a three-part EPRS rating would already be more complex than most single-
scale ratings. A five-level scale was thought to be sufficient.
Though buildings rated at the highest levels will be rare, the BRC included these levels to be aspirational,
to convey that better performance is possible. Still, even the highest rating levels might not distinguish
those buildings designed for truly exceptional performance. By the same token, even the lowest rating
levels do not distinguish the very “worst of the worst,” such as collapse-risk buildings that would merit
1-star ratings in even a small earthquake.
3. A “No Rating” option

In addition to the five rating levels, each dimension has a “No Rating” option for cases where the
underlying methodology does not justify or support a specific rating. The No Rating option may also be
used where a rating for that dimension is not required for the rating program. (See Section 2.6:
Specialized ratings.)
Where an underlying methodology does not explicitly address one or more rating dimensions, the
ratings derived from the evaluation results are likely to be quite conservative. In these cases, No Rating
can be an appropriate option, as it might be preferable (to the rating engineer or to the client) to convey
uncertainty rather than over-conservatism.
In other cases, the underlying methodology might not justify a rating at all for one or more dimensions.
In these cases, No Rating serves as an appropriate placeholder to remind the user that this dimension of
performance is meaningful but has not been investigated.
No Rating is also useful where one or more dimensions is not requested by the client or the rating
program. For example, a program that focuses only on safety and reoccupancy might not care about
Repair Cost and might not be well served by a Recovery Rating based on functional recovery. In these
cases, a rating of No Evaluation might be even more appropriate than No Rating, but the BRC does not
yet consider it necessary to add a seventh such option to rating definitions.
2015
4. Pragmatic distinctions between levels

Where industry and regulatory precedents exist, the rating levels are set to respect them. Otherwise,
the rating levels are intended to respect the perspective of rating users (owners, tenants, lenders,
regulators), as opposed to more academic or theoretical perspectives of some engineers and
researchers.
“Pragmatic distinctions” means that rating levels are separated by boundaries that have practical
meaning to clients or stakeholders. It is the BRC’s intent that, where possible, different ratings should
represent broadly different limit states or modes of performance, as opposed to arbitrarily higher or
lower degrees of deficiency, or likelihood, within a single mode. For this reason, the EPRS ratings are not
based on scores or points, the star symbols are non-numeric (so that there is no such thing as half a
star), and the short rating labels avoid adjectives such as Good, Fair, High, Low, Severe, or Minimal.
The Repair Cost ratings offer good examples of distinctions with industry precedent. The 20 percent and
40 percent SEL values cited in the descriptions are linked to established precedents in lending and
insurance.
Similar industry and regulatory precedents do not exist for Safety and Recovery. If, however, a standard
practice were to arise making a key distinction based on, for example, percentage of occupant
casualties, then the BRC would consider adjusting the Safety levels to match that precedent. Similarly, if
a precedent were to arise making a key distinction based on, for example, ability to recover function by
72 hours or 30 days, then the BRC would consider adjusting the Recovery levels to match that
precedent.
Since the Safety Rating levels do not have industry precedents to follow, the defined levels reflect the
interests of typical non-expert owners and tenants who routinely ask: Could this building kill someone?
Hence the main distinction between the 2-star and 3-star Safety Ratings. Below that line, the Safety
levels reflect distinctions between local and global collapse. Above it, they represent distinctions
thought by the BRC to be significant to owners, tenants, and emergency responders. More specifically:
 Buildings with any of the following deficiencies will generally be assigned a 1-star Safety Rating:
o Substantial overstress or inadequate detailing of primary elements of the seismic force-
resisting system.
o Missing or substantially inadequate fundamental load path components.
o Global collapse-prone irregularities.
o Slope failure or surface rupture.
o Fire- or explosion-prone nonstructural deficiencies.
 Buildings with any of the following deficiencies will generally be assigned a 2-star Safety Rating:
o Local collapse-prone deficiencies
o Liquefaction
o Heavy overhead falling hazards
 Buildings whose only deficiencies involve non-life threatening nonstructural falling hazards will
generally be assigned a 3-star Safety Rating.
 Buildings with no deficiencies meriting a 3-star or worse rating will generally be assigned a 4-star
Safety Rating.
 Some buildings with stiff lateral systems and buildings detailed specifically to avoid egress-
inhibiting damage (such as base isolated buildings) are eligible for a 5-star Safety rating.
2015
The Recovery Rating levels are obviously vague, reflecting both the difficulty of predicting downtime and
the lack of tested evaluation methodologies to support such predictions. A few evaluation
methodologies are beginning to use more precise terms, but until they are vetted and widely used, and
keeping in mind that the EPRS ignores most externalities, the BRC believes that the current rating levels
have appropriately soft edges, so that the judgment of the rating engineer may play a significant role. As
noted above, No Rating is always an option. Even if No Rating is given, it is the intent of the BRC that a
space for the Recovery Rating should nevertheless be presented to the client to indicate that downtime
can be a significant loss and that recovery is an emerging issue in engineering and emergency
management.
2.5. Translating the underlying evaluation
The heart of the rating process is the translation of underlying evaluation results into an EPRS Rating. A
translation procedure should be suited to the underlying evaluation methodology. The more formal the
evaluation methodology, the more detailed and specific the translation procedure will likely be. In all
cases, however, an EPRS rating is a simplified summary of the evaluation findings, so it will almost
always present less certainty and less detail than the underlying evaluation. Translation of evaluation
findings to EPRS Ratings is therefore best thought of as the process of selecting not the perfect
description of expected performance, but the best description from among five available choices.
A translation procedure is a set of rules and logical decision trees (perhaps involving flowcharts,
worksheets, checklists, or other tools) to translate the results of an underlying evaluation into a three-
part EPRS Rating. The BRC’s translation of ASCE 31-03 is one such example (SEAONC EBC BRC, 2015).
Each evaluation methodology will have its own translation procedure. The procedure takes as inputs the
typical results of the evaluation methodology, which might be deficiency lists, demand-capacity ratios,
“PML” values, etc., depending on the methodology.
Though it is the intent of the BRC that translations would ideally be done with consensus procedures, a
formal translation procedure is not strictly necessary. In concept, any engineer could complete an
evaluation of any sort and then characterize the results in EPRS terms, using the rating definitions from
Table 2.4 together with his or her own judgment. This would help establish the EPRS as a common set of
terms.
A detailed translation procedure for any formal, documented evaluation methodology will respect the
eligibility limits, the required scope of work, and the performance assumptions and descriptions given
by the methodology itself. Where the methodology is incomplete as to its performance definitions, the
translation procedure will include the judgment of the BRC or other organizations that develop the
procedure. In these cases the No Rating option may be the best choice.
As noted in Chapter 1, the EPRS is not itself an evaluation methodology. In particular, the BRC was
careful not to create its own evaluation rules or criteria, but to respect those of the underlying
evaluation methodology. Ideally, whether an underlying evaluation merits a 3-star Repair Cost Rating,
for example, should be based primarily on whether the evaluation methodology itself makes an
assertion that the SEL (perhaps modified to reflect repair cost as opposed to hypothetical loss) would be
less than 20 percent of replacement value in the stipulated seismic hazard. In many cases, however,
2015
evaluation methodologies will not be that clear; in these cases, the translation procedure will represent
the judgment of its authors.
Currently, the BRC has developed one complete translation procedure, for ASCE 31-03 (SEAONC EBC
BRC, 2015). It is the BRC’s intent that procedures for other evaluation methodologies will be developed
and provided in future guides. Again, however, it is not the intent of the BRC to prohibit the use of any
evaluation methodology, including informal, simplified, or judgment-based methodologies.
The BRC’s translation procedure for ASCE 31-03 already incorporates some of the revisions made to the
methodology as it was updated to ASCE 41-13. The ASCE 31 translation procedure already acknowledges
that it can apply, with judgment, to ASCE 41-13.
The BRC anticipates that translations for new and robust evaluation methodologies, such as FEMA P-58,
will be relatively straightforward and easy for others to produce. Where such methodologies are used,
however, it is not clear that the client, having already commissioned a sophisticated evaluation, would
still need the added summary or simplification of an EPRS Rating. Many more evaluations are currently
performed using code-based procedures (either the code for new construction or specialized provisions
such as IEBC Appendix A), simple checklists (such as the California Seismic Safety Commission’s
Homeowner’s Guide), or even quick drawing reviews and walk-throughs. These evaluation
methodologies might not justify high ratings, but the BRC encourages development of translation
procedures to support such common practices.
The BRC started with ASCE 31-03 because it was, at the time, the national standard for seismic
evaluation and because its checklist approach lends itself to a well-defined translation procedure. The
expectation is that future translation procedures for other methodologies will, where necessary, use the
ASCE 31-03 or ASCE 41-13 procedure as a benchmark.
Where other methodologies are incomplete, the translation procedure might determine that No Rating
is justified, or that the methodology can justify only a conservative rating based on the judgment of the
procedure’s authors. For example, ASCE 31-03 is not explicit as to repair costs, so the BRC’s translation
procedure assigns Repair Cost ratings based on conservative judgments about the implications of certain
safety-related evaluation results (as described further in SEAONC EBC BRS, 2012).
2.6. Specialized ratings
By addressing a broad range of potential earthquake performance in three quasi-independent

dimensions, the EPRS is more comprehensive than most specialized evaluation methodologies and
rating systems in use today. Nevertheless, the BRC recognizes that many rating programs will not need
so detailed an approach. While a three-part rating is more complete and in many cases more clear, and
while the BRC encourages engineers to use the EPRS as a recommended practice, specialized ratings
might better serve the immediate needs of certain clients or other stakeholders. Specialized ratings
might involve only some EPRS dimensions and levels and might give certain combinations of rating levels
their own designations.
These specialized ratings can be derived from the more comprehensive EPRS. It is the position of the
BRC that rather than replace the EPRS, specialized ratings should be built from it and linked back to it, so
as to maintain the benefit of a common set of ideas and definitions.
2015
An early insight, discussed in the BRC’s published conference papers, is that a single rating system is
probably not appropriate for every rating program. In particular, the BRC developed the relatively
detailed EPRS with voluntary, private, stakeholder-generated ratings in mind. A mandatory, public
program, perhaps overseen by a local building department, would almost certainly need a simpler set of
ratings. Even so, because the EPRS is comprehensive (or nearly so), simpler systems can be built from its
parts. With the EPRS as a common platform, these simpler, specialized rating systems will be mutually
consistent and traceable to common terminology, so that the same term will have the same meaning in
different systems and programs. The BRC expects this approach to serve multiple stakeholder groups
without repeating (and perhaps even resolving) the inconsistencies inherent in the many guidelines and
methodologies in use today.
Specialized ratings serve different stakeholder perspectives, not different building types or occupancies.
There is no reason to think that the EPRS is appropriate only for existing buildings (as opposed to new)
or only for commercial buildings (as opposed to 1-2 unit residential). But it is easy to see why an
emergency planner interested in reoccupancy might want different information from a rating program
than a renter interested in safety or a real estate investor interested in return on investment.
The PML (Probable Maximum Loss) market is an example of a specialized rating program. The lenders
and insurers who rely on it expect basic safety (and thus do not need five nuanced Safety levels) but are
focused primarily on financial losses. A specialized rating to serve their interests might consider some of
the EPRS Safety levels, all of its Repair Cost levels, and none of its Recovery levels. The recovery-focused
categories defined by SPUR (San Francisco Planning and Urban Research) are another specialized system
that can be built from and linked to the EPRS (once a reoccupancy dimension is added). SPUR categories
A – D ignore financial loss, distinguish “safe” from “unsafe” buildings in a binary fashion, and focus on
the time to safe reoccupancy, from hours to years.
An EPRS Rating should be communicated in a way that supports its goal of clear and effective
communication to non-expert stakeholders. These guidelines for presenting an EPRS Rating to a client or
user are important because the EPRS as a defined system is new, even if its concepts are familiar and
pragmatic.
The BRC anticipates at least two levels of presentation, as outlined in the following sections.
Eventually, if the EPRS is successful, the BRC would expect to hear statements such as “This building got
4 stars for safety,” or “This is a 4-3-3-star building.” Such shorthand references exist for other de facto
rating systems already. For example, people say that a building “satisfies Life Safety” without stating the
hazard level and without clarifying whether nonstructural components have been considered. Similarly,
people say a building “has a PML under 20” without clarifying whether that is an SEL or SUL value.
The BRC could add to the User’s Guide a template for the summary presentation, but for now it leaves
that to rating engineers and implementing bodies, who might want to use their own logos and
formatting.
Regardless of presentation type, format, or content, the presentation should not refer to SEAONC in any
way that might give the impression that SEAONC produced or reviewed the rating.
2015
The BRC expects that a rating engineer might add a disclaimer or other explanatory or contractual
language, and that such language might refer to SEAONC, the EPRS, or this User’s Guide. This is
acceptable, as long as the explanation in no way gives the impression that SEAONC produced, reviewed,
or approved the rating actually being presented. While SEAONC makes the EPRS available for use by
qualified engineers and by implementing organizations and agencies, it is SEAONC’s position that the
engineer whose seal and signature appear on the presentation is responsible for the rating, that
SEAONC did not produce, review, or approve the rating, and that SEAONC assumes no responsibility for
its use by any party.
3.1. Summary presentation

When delivering an EPRS rating to the client, the rating engineer should use the full presentation
described in Section 3.2. The summary presentation is intended merely as an optional (but
recommended) cover sheet, with the expectation that the client might post or forward just the
summary, without all of the supporting documents that are part of a full presentation. The summary
presentation is expected to fit on one side of a standard 8.5x11 sheet.
The BRC recommends that a summary presentation include all of the following:
 A building identifier. This can be the street address, the client’s name for the building, or any
designation that uniquely identifies the building being rated.
 The three-part rating, showing each rating dimension and the symbolic rating (the stars or “NR”
for No Rating; see Table 2.4) for each dimension. It is important that each dimension – Safety,
Repair Cost, Functional Recovery – be shown with its own rating, as opposed to showing a single
rating for all three dimensions together.
 The rating engineer’s seal, which should show the engineer’s name and license number.
 The rating engineer’s signature.
 The full set of EPRS Rating definitions, from Table 2.4, including the symbol, the name, and the
definition of each rating level for each rating dimension.
 The underlying methodology used to derive each dimension’s rating.
All three rating dimensions should be shown even if one or more of them has No Rating. As discussed
above, the idea of a multi-dimensional rating is essential to the EPRS because it more completely
communicates the evaluation results to the client and other stakeholders. If a dimension has No Rating,
even that information conveys to the user that certain potential losses have not been investigated, but
are considered significant by experts. Further, the multi-dimensional focus preserves the EPRS as a
comprehensive foundation for specialized ratings that might use only one or two dimensions or might
combine ratings into special categories.
2015
Ideally, the stars should be shown in a format that conveys “__ out of 5 possible.” For a 3-star rating, for
example, this might be done by showing three stars and leaving two blank spaces where additional stars
might have gone.
Use of the engineer’s seal should follow any prescribed requirements by the state or jurisdiction.
California, for example, has separate licenses for Professional Engineers (which show their branch, e.g.
Civil) and for Structural Engineers, as well as requirements for the content and size of the seal and how
to sign and date its use.
In California, the definition of civil engineering in Business and Professions Code Sections 6701-6702
would seem to include seismic evaluation and, by extension, application of a rating system like the EPRS.
Nevertheless, the state has not generally required an engineer’s seal on reports or evaluations that are
“not for construction.” The BRC recommends that organizations or agencies implementing the EPRS
should treat the rating process as if it were in fact the practice of engineering and to that effect might
add regulatory language to any templates they produce to facilitate summary or full rating
presentations.
In addition, the BRC recommends including the following statement (or something similar, at the
rating engineer’s discretion) for completeness (see also Sections 2.2 and 2.3):
These ratings correspond to expected performance given a single earthquake with

ground shaking between 75 and 100 percent of that used for the design of a new
building of normal occupancy (Risk Category II) and of similar size and location. The
rating does not address the performance of certain contents, utilities, infrastructure,
or geologic conditions outside the building footprint or lot. See the EPRS User’s Guide
for a full description of the rating scope.
Refer to the commentary on Section 2.2 regarding the EPRS seismic hazard and Section 2.3 regarding
the EPRS rating scope.
3.2. Full presentation

The full presentation represents the BRC’s recommendation for the minimum amount of information
that a rating engineer should deliver to the client.
The BRC recommends that a full presentation include all of the following:
 A summary presentation, or all of the information required for a summary presentation, as

 Any summary or report form contractually required by the client or the organization or agency
implementing the EPRS.
 The EPRS translation. This is a report showing how the EPRS Rating was derived from the
underlying evaluation. Where a formal translation procedure exists, this report might take the
form of that procedure, with any flowcharts or worksheets provided there.
2015
 The underlying evaluation report. The format and content of the underlying evaluation report will
vary with each methodology. In general, the report must be sufficient to show how its results
were produced and where the judgment of the evaluating engineer, if any, was applied (see
Section 1.2). The BRC recommends including a summary of the underlying evaluation showing the
results used as inputs to the EPRS translation procedure.
Often, a client will prefer to see evaluation results presented in a standard format. Presentation of the
EPRS rating should not interfere with any such requirements. Where no such requirements are made, it
is often useful, or good practice, to provide a summary of pertinent information about the structure,
either at the top of the submittal package or as a summary of the underlying evaluation. Such a
summary might include, at the engineer’s and client’s discretion:
 A list of the drawings and documents reviewed
 A description and documentation of any site visits performed
 Building design information, including the original design code and edition, a history of any
structural alterations, and past and current use and occupancy
 Description of the seismic force-resisting system, the gravity force-resisting system, and the
foundation
 Site seismicity parameters
 Key deficiencies identified by the evaluation.
2015
APPENDIX E
FEMA P58 BASED RATING
METHODOLOGY
Compiled by C.B. Haselton, B. McDonald, and Casey Champion
Last Updated August 13, 2015
Rating Acceptance Criteria 1

Use of FEMA 154 for Estimating the Building Collapse Capacity 4
Overview 4
Extension of FEMA 154 with Scores for Enhanced Performance 5

Background On Acceptance Criteria Development for the Safety Dimension 6
Overview 6
Threshold Score Values 7
Thresholds for Fatalities 7
Thresholds for Injuries 8
Thresholds for 5-Star Egress 8

Use of the REDi Methodology for Recovery Dimension 9
Overview 9
Allowable Default Values 9
Analysis requirements when Completing the FEMA P-58 Analysis 9
Consideration of Residual Drifts 10
Review Requirements for a FEMA P-58 Analysis and Building Rating 10
Appendix E U.S. Resiliency Council

© 2015
Page |1
Methodology Basis
Where the USRC building rating approach is based on the FEMA P-58 methodology (FEMA 2012),
as documented in the September 2012 reports on the topic (ATC 2011). The FEMA P-58 approach
is supplemented with use of FEMA 154 (FEMA 2015) to estimate the needed input collapse capacity
information, as described later in this document. Additionally, for the Recovery Time dimension, the
FEMA P-58 approach is supplemented by the REDi Functional Recovery Time methodology (Almufiti
and Willford 2013). The USRC Building Rating should be completed in accordance with the
requirements of the FEMA P-58 methodology and the requirements of this document.
Rating Acceptance Criteria

The third column of the following three tables provides the numerical acceptance criteria for achieving
various USRC rating levels using the FEMA P-58 assessment methodology.
Safety Rating Criteria

Detailed FEMA P-58 Rating
Rating Expected Safety Performance
Methodology Criteria
The requirements shall be met for 4-star.
The likelihood of a building occupant
Injuries and blocking of exit paths being fatality injured, considering both
unlikely building collapse and other non-collapse
***** Expected performance results in falling hazards, is less than 0.00003 for a
conditions unlikely to cause injuries or to 475-year event.
keep people from exiting the building. Egress routes are expected to be intact,
with the building meeting the specific
requirements below for a 475-year event.
being fatality injured, considering both
building collapse and other non-collapse
Serious injuries unlikely falling hazards, is less than 0.0001 for a
Expected performance results in 475-year event.
**** conditions that are unlikely to cause The likelihood of a building occupant
serious injuries. being injured, considering both building
collapse and other non-collapse falling
hazards, is less than 0.02 for a 475-year
event.
Loss of life unlikely
being fatally injured, considering both
Expected performance results in
*** conditions that are unlikely to cause loss
building collapse and other non-collapse
falling hazards, is less than 0.0004 for a
of life.
475-year event.

© 2015
Page |2
Loss of life possible in isolated The likelihood of a building occupant

locations being fatally injured, considering only
Expected performance results in partial building collapse, is less than 0.004 for a
** collapse or falling objects which have a 475-year event.
potential to cause loss of life at some Fatalities due to falling hazards are not
locations within or around the building. considered.
Loss of life likely in the building
Expected performance results in The building was evaluated but did not
* building collapse which has a high meet the 2-star rating criteria.
potential for deaths of people who are in
or around the building.
For egress route being intact for a 5-star safety rating, the following are the specific requirement for
egress routes for a 475-year ground motion:
 Stairs are expected to be functional, with either of the following requirements being met:
 Stairs shall be shown to have less than 5% chance of losing live-load carrying capacity (at
the worst-case story).
 Stairs and ramps that are not integral with the structural system shall be detailed to
accommodate the seismic relative displacements according to ASCE 7 Section 13.3.2.
Stairs and ramps that are integral with the structural system shall be designed with the
overstrength factor of the seismic force-resisting system, but not less than 2.5.
 Components in egress routes are shown to have a small chance of falling and impeding
egress (with not more than 5% probability on average over all egress routes). At least the
following list of such items must be assessed.
 Ceilings shall be shown to have a small chance of total grid collapse.
 HVAC ducting shall be shown to have a small chance of ducting dropping from the ceiling.
 Piping along egress routes which contain hazardous materials shall be shown to have a
small chance of leaking.
 Parapets over egress routes shall be shown to have a small chance of collapse.
 Doors are expected to be functional; mean residual story drifts shall be less than 0.0025;
alternatively, egress doors shall be capable of accommodating the mean peak interstory
drift.
Masonry partitions around stairs or other egress routes are not permissible unless capable of reliably
accommodating the mean drift and acceleration demands.
Damage Rating Criteria

Rating USRC Damage Rating
Methodology Criteria
Minimal Damage The mean repair cost in a 475-year event
***** Repair Cost likely less than 5% of building is less than 5% of building replacement
replacement cost cost
Moderate Damage The mean repair cost in a 475-year event
**** Repair Cost likely less than 10% of is less than 10% of building replacement
building replacement cost. cost.

© 2015
Page |3
Significant Damage The mean repair cost in a 475-year event

*** Repair Cost likely less than 20% of is less than 20% of building replacement
Substantial damage The mean repair cost in a 475-year event
** Repair Cost likely less than 40% of is less than 40% of building replacement
Severe Damage The mean repair cost in a 475-year event
* Repair Cost likely greater than 40% of is greater than or equal to 40% of building
building replacement cost. replacement cost.
Not Evaluated
NE
Repair Cost has not been evaluated.
Recovery Rating Criteria

Rating USRC Recovery Rating Methodology Criteria (using REDi
Functional Recovery Time)
Within hours to days.
The expected performance will likely The median recovery time after a 475-
result in people being able to quickly re-
***** enter and resume use of the building from
year event is less than 5 days.
immediately to a few days, excluding
external factors.
Within days to weeks.
The expected performance may result in The median recovery time after a 475-
**** delay of minimum operational use from year event is less than 4 weeks.
days to weeks, excluding external factors.
Within weeks to months.
The expected performance may result in The median recovery time after a 475-
*** delay of minimum operational use from year event is less than 6 months.
weeks to months, excluding external
factors.
Within months to a year. The median recovery time after a 475-
Expected performance may result in
** delay of minimum operational use from
year event is less than one year.
for months to a year.
More than a year The median recovery time after a 475-
Expected performance may result in
* delay of minimum operational use for at
year event is greater than one year.
least one year or more.
Not Evaluated
NE Time to Regain Basic Function has not
been evaluated.

© 2015
Page |4
Use of FEMA 154 for Estimating the Building

Collapse Capacity
Overview
When using the FEMA P-58 methodology to determine the building ratings, a collapse fragility curve
is a required input, and this building performance metric is not something that most engineers are
accustomed to estimating. Accordingly, the USRC P-58 rating process utilizes the FEMA 154
checklist method to estimate the collapse fragility curve for a building. This collapse fragility curve
affects the results for all rating dimensions, but especially influences the results for the Safety
dimension. Note that the development of the detailed P-58 Safety rating criteria and the associated
threshold values are predicated on this use of the FEMA 154 methodology to estimate the building
collapse fragility curve. Further background on the development of the Safety dimension acceptance
criteria is discussed in subsequent sections.
Process and Allowable Default Values when using the FEMA 154 Approach to Estimate the Building
Collapse Capacity
This section documents the process by which the rater can use FEMA 154 to estimate the collapse
fragility curve for the building. Note that the Safety dimension acceptance criteria have been
calibrated to the use of FEMA 154, so this approach should be used to estimate the collapse fragility.
It should also be noted that the use other methods to estimate the collapse fragility, such as
incremental dynamic analysis or referenced values in ASCE 7, could lead to highly conservative
estimates of the Safety rating. The FEMA 154 results tend to lead to lower collapse probabilities than
some other common methods and other methods should be used with caution when completing a
USRC rating (e.g. it would be very conservative to just assume a 10% collapse probability at the
MCER for a new Risk Category II building).
The first step to estimating the building collapse capacity using FEMA 154 is to complete the
checklists and compute the resultant “score” (S value) for the building. A Level 2 checklist should be
used in this evaluation process. The S score provides the means to calculate a probability of
“collapse” for an MCER ground motion, in accordance with the equation below. Note that the FEMA
154 definition of collapse (shown here as “collapse”) is not equivalent to the actual collapse probability
of the building. The probability of “collapse” used in FEMA 154 is the probability of total or partial
collapse multiplied by the ratio of the building area affected by the collapse. In other words, the FEMA
154 definition of “collapse” probability is the likelihood of a collapse occurring and affecting a specific
individual at a specific location in the building. Therefore, a conversion is needed when estimating
the actual collapse fragility curve input for the FEMA P-58 methodology.
𝑃["Collapse"|𝑀𝐶𝐸𝑅 ] = 10−𝑆
In order to convert the P[“Collapse”|MCER], as defined in FEMA 154, to a P[Collapse | MCER] that
can be used to estimate the collapse fragility curve used in the FEMA P-58 methodology (without the
FEMA 154 area ratio normalization), an assumption of the collapse area ratio is required for the type
of building being rated. Allowable default values of the collapse area ratio are provided in the table
below for various types of buildings. These allowable default values were developed using the
collapse factor values given for each system in FEMA 155 Table A-11 (2015), which combine the
© 2015
Page |5
collapse area ratios with the probability that collapse occurs when the building is in a HAZUS damage
state five. In short, the default collapse area ratios in Table 1 indicate a partial building collapse that
affects approximately 1/3 of wood buildings or 1/2 of steel buildings, and complete building collapse
for concrete systems.
Table 1. Allowable Default Collapse Area Ratios by FEMA Building Type
Collapse Area Ratios by FEMA Building Type

W1 W1a W2 S1 S2 S3 S4 S5 C1 C2 C3 PC1 PC2 RM1 RM2 URM MH
0.33 0.33 0.33 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.33
The above step provided an estimate for the P[Collapse | MCER] value and the only additional
information needed to define the collapse fragility curve is the variability value β. The table below
provides allowable default values by building type (from Table 8-1 of FEMA 155).
Table 2. Allowable Default Collapse Fragility Variability Values (lognormal standard deviations) by
FEMA Building Type
Collapse Variability (β) FEMA Building Type

0.55 0.55 0.58 0.61 0.59 0.60 0.59 0.56 0.70 0.47 0.60 0.70 0.89 0.73 0.73 0.60 0.52
The collapse fragility curve can now be computed using the resulting P[Collapse | MCE R] and β
values. In the FEMA P-58 analysis process, this collapse fragility curve should then be used in
conjunction with a collapse mode that has a collapse area ratio, as defined in Table 1. Additionally,
the fatality rate (likelihood of fatality for someone in the collapsed area of the building) is needed for
the FEMA P-58 Safety rating calculations. Allowable default rates are provided below in Table 3.
These allowable defaults come from Table 3 of the FEMA P-58 Background Document 3.7.8 (2012)
and the Hazus Technical Manual (ref).
Table 3. Allowable Default Fatality Rates by FEMA Building Type
Fatality Rate by FEMA Building Type

0.01 0.01 0.01 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.24 0.12 0.11 0.24 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.43 0.05
Extension of FEMA 154 with Scores for Enhanced

Performance
The FEMA 154 checklist methodology was developed for rapid visual screening of buildings for
potential seismic hazards. The checklist statements are tailored to identify building attributes that
may contribute to poor seismic performance, such as irregularities. However, in its current form, the
methodology does not capture the enhanced performance of buildings that were designed for larger
seismic forces (i.e. Risk Category III and IV buildings) or buildings that incorporate base isolation.
Additional checklist statements have been added to the FEMA 154 screening tool that offer the
opportunity to increase the estimated collapse capacity for buildings with enhanced seismic

© 2015
Page |6
performance. Risk Category III and IV benchmark buildings will have an additional score modifier
applied that adjusts the calculated collapse capacity. Similarly, seismically isolated buildings have a
separate score modifier included in the FEMA 154 assessment (not to be used in conjunction with
the Risk Category III or IV modifiers).
The score modifiers for enhanced performance were developed by the USRC FEMA P-58
Subcommittee and are as follows:
Risk Category III structure: S = +0.4 (computed based on an expected shift in mean collapse capacity
by a factor of 1.25).
Risk Category IV Structure: S = +0.8 (computed based on an expected shift in mean collapse capacity
by a factor of 1.5).
Seismically isolated structure: S = +0.8 for structures complying with the gap requirements of ASCE
7-10 (S score estimated based on judgment).
Additionally, the following modifications and interpretations of the FEMA 154 checklists are allowable.
If any of these modifications are utilized, the basis should be well documented and will be subject to
review.
The retrofit score modifier in FEMA 154 only allows for either “no retrofit” or a “comprehensive building
retrofit.” In the use of the FEMA 154 method, if a partial retrofit has been completed, it is allowable
to remove the checklist deficiencies that were addressed by the retrofit.
If the retrofit meets performance objectives beyond 75% of new code, then it may be allowable to use
the full basic score increase as if the building is a post-benchmark building.
If it can be demonstrated that a checklist item does not result in a reduction to the performance of a
building, or if the item was properly accounted for in the original design (e.g. plan irregularity), it is
allowable to remove the score reduction for this checklist item.
For building properties that are not reflected in the FEMA 154 checklist, engineering judgement can
be used to provide modifications to the resulting collapse fragility curve. If this is done, then the rating
will be subjected to an Elevated Technical Review.
Background On Acceptance Criteria

Development for the Safety Dimension
Overview
As outlined in the previous sections, the collapse fragility curve is estimated using the FEMA 154
approach. This section documents how the Safety dimension acceptance criteria were calibrated to
be consistent with the FEMA 154 checklist approach.

© 2015
Page |7
Threshold Score Values

In development of the Safety rating acceptance criteria, the following is a summary of the required
underlying score (S) values used as the basis for developing each criterion:
S > 3.0 for 5-star

S > 2.5 for 4-star
S > 2.0 for 3-star
S > 1.0 for 2-star
Approach to Converting the MCER Collapse Probability to a 10% in 50 year Motion

Collapse Probability
The output of the FEMA 154 checklist methodology is a collapse probability for an MCER ground
motion, as defined in ASCE 7-10 (ASCE 2010). However, the USRC building rating approach is
instead based on a 10% in 50 year ground motion (475-year event). The ratio between the MCER
and 10% in 50 year ground motion hazard levels is expected to be approximately 1.5 when the MCER
is controlled by the 2% in 50 year hazard value. However, in near-fault and transition zone regions,
the MCER is capped deterministically and can be much lower than the 2% in 50 year hazard value.
When completing the FEMA P-58 building evaluation, the collapse probability for an MCER ground
motion is computed and used to estimate the building collapse fragility curve (as explained in the
previous sections). In the analysis process, collapse probabilities at other seismic hazard levels (e.g.
the 10% in 50 year motion) are simply computed from this fragility curve assuming a lognormal
distribution.
To set the acceptance criteria for the Safety dimension for a 10% in 50 year ground motion, a
conversion factor of 1.5 was used as the ratio between the spectral accelerations for the MCER and
the 10% in 50 year ground motion hazard levels. Note the ratio of 1.5 does not accommodate all
transition or near-fault regions where this ratio is less; buildings at such sites will often be required to
achieve a higher FEMA 154 score (S) in order to meet a specific Safety rating. This approach is
appropriate because, based on the current building code design approaches, the real risk is higher
for buildings at near-fault and transition zone sites. Note, however, that the score (S) thresholds were
reduced slightly to accommodate most code compliant buildings at transition zone sites earning a 3-
star safety rating.
Thresholds for Fatalities

To create the threshold values for each Safety rating level, the fatality rate for a 10% in 50 year motion
was computed for each building type using the assessment approach outlined in the previous
sections on how to apply the FEMA 154 methodology. This includes the calculated building score
(S), the default collapse area ratio for the building type (Table 1), the default collapse fragility
variability value β for the building type (Table 2), the default fatality rate for the building type (Table
3), and the conversion from MCER to the 10% in 50 year motion.
Table 4 illustrates the results of these baseline calculations for each building type and the average
values are shown in the rightmost column. These average values are used, with appropriate
rounding, to establish the threshold fatality rates for each Safety rating level, as shown below. Note
that the total allowable fatality rate for the three-star levels (and higher) is increased by a factor of
© 2015
Page |8
two to account for the fact that the acceptance criteria for these Safety rating levels includes both
fatalities from collapse and fatalities from falling hazards (which were shown to be approximately
equal contributors, on average, in the benchmarking studies).
 Total fatality rate less than 0.00003 for 5-star (with criteria for injury rates also imposed).
 Total fatality rate less than 0.0001 for 4-star (with criteria for injury rates also imposed).
 Total fatality rate less than 0.0004 for 3-star
 Collapse-only fatality rate less than 0.004 for 2-star
Table 4. Computed Baseline Fatality Rates by FEMA Building Type
P[fatality of given occupant| 10% in 50 year] by FEMA Building Type

Score / UR Avg.
W1 W1a W2 S1 S2 S3 S4 S5 C1 C2 C3 PC1 PC2 RM1 RM2
Rating M
S = 3.0 8.2E 8.2E 9.5E 1.1E 1.0E 1.0E 1.0E 1.9E 1.5E 4.2E 2.0E 1.3E 2.2E 1.5E 1.5E 3.6E 1.3E
(5-star) -07 -07 -07 -05 -05 -05 -05 -05 -05 -06 -05 -05 -05 -05 -05 -05 -05
(4-star) -06 -06 -06 -05 -05 -05 -05 -05 -05 -05 -05 -05 -05 -05 -05 -04 -05
(3-star) -05 -05 -05 -04 -04 -04 -04 -04 -04 -05 -04 -04 -04 -04 -04 -04 -04
(2-star) -04 -04 -04 -03 -03 -03 -03 -03 -03 -03 -03 -03 -03 -03 -03 -02 -03
Thresholds for Injuries

The injury rate threshold for a 4-star safety rating was calibrated based on the results of a FEMA P-
58 rating method benchmarking study completed by many members of the USRC Technical Advisory
Committee. The results of this study are documented in Cook et al. (2015). The target injury rate to
meet a 4-star Safety rating was set such that the post-benchmark buildings in the validation study
would need additional anchoring of nonstructural components, above code-minimum requirements,
in order to meet the selected threshold. Based on this approach, the required injury rate to achieve
a 4-star Safety rating is 0.02.
Note that the validation studies utilized the FEMA P-58 normative quantities, as documented in the
FEMA P-58 publications (FEMA 2012) along with some modifications from ongoing work on the ATC-
58 Phase II project. Based on these default quantities being used in the calibration, this calibrated
injury threshold is somewhat dependent from these FEMA P-58 default quantity values (especially
that of lighting quantities, which cause falling hazards).
Thresholds for 5-Star Egress

The 5-star Safety requirements for egress are documented in the previous acceptance criteria table.
These thresholds were developed to ensure a high likelihood that egress out of the building will be
possible after a 10% in 50 year earthquake ground motion.

© 2015
Page |9
Use of the REDi Methodology for Recovery

Dimension
Overview
The Recovery Time dimension analysis is based on the REDi Functional Recovery Time estimation
method. This USRC rating approach is based on REDi Version 1.1, which includes some slight
refinements over REDi Version 1.0 and which will be published shortly in Earthquake Spectra.
In accordance with the definitions of the Recovery Time ratings, the rating is based on the Functional
Recovery repair time and includes the building related impeding factors that may delay the start of
the building repairs (i.e. all impeding factors other than off-site electric power). For consistency with
the REDi method, the median (instead of mean) Recovery Time value is used for this dimension.
In the reporting for the rating certificate, the total Functional Recovery time should be reported, and
also the breakdown should be reported for how much of the Functional Recovery time comes from
repair versus impeding factors.
Allowable Default Values

It is allowable to use the REDi recommended default values for the REDi method inputs (e.g. numbers
of expected workers in the building doing the repairs, etc.). For shorter buildings that have a large
footprint area, the REDi default values for numbers of workers can be much lower than the FEMA P-
58 recommended value of one worker per 1,000 square feet. In such cases, where the REDi default
values result in fewer than one worker per 1,000 square feet, it is allowable to increase the worker
numbers to be a minimum of one worker per 1,000 square feet.
Analysis requirements when Completing the FEMA P-58

Analysis
Ground Motion Hazard
It is allowable to use either USGS hazard values or the results of a site-specific analysis. However,
any site-specific analysis must comply with the minimum design spectral response accelerations in
accordance with ASCE 7.
Structural Responses
Any rational method can be used for estimating the building structural response (e.g. FEMA P-58
Simplified Method for buildings up to 15-stories, response-history analysis, etc.).
Building Contents
The FEMA P-58 method provides normative quantities for expected building non-structural
components (based on building occupancy and building size) and similar pre-populated values can
be done for structural components based on basic layout information of the building. These default
© 2015
P a g e | 10
quantities can be used without modification for up through 2-star ratings. For 3-star ratings, the
default building component inventory must be given at least a brief review by the analyst and
modifications should be made if any items are substantially different from what is in the building. For
4-star ratings, the component inventory list should be given further scrutiny and for 5-star ratings the
component inventory list should accurately reflect the components in the building.
Building Replacement Time
When estimating the Functional Recovery Time for the Recovery Time rating, the full building
replacement time should be used for analysis realizations that results in collapse or high levels of
residual drift that result in building demolition. The building replacement time can be determined
using any rational method, but the following are pre-approved default building replacement time
values that may be used, with linear interpolation between the values and linear extrapolation for
buildings above 30-story.
 1-story: 9 months
Consideration of Residual Drifts

Residual drifts can have a large impact on the results of a FEMA P-58 analysis for some building
types. Residual drifts need not be included in the analysis for up through 3-star ratings (for
consistency with similar analyses done for due-diligence applications) but residual drifts must be
included in the analysis for any ratings above 3-star.
Review Requirements for a FEMA P-58 Analysis and

Building Rating
The review requirements for a FEMA P-58 based rating are provided in separate documentation.

© 2015
Page |1
APPENDIX F
USRC DEVELOPMENT PARTICIPANTS
Technical Advisory Committee Subcommittees
Dimensions and Hazard Level for the Rating Certification and Discipline
Definitions System Criteria
Mark Moore (Chair) Marko Schontanus (Chair) Evan Reis (Chair)

Grace Kang Marguerite Bello Ken O'Dell
Jon Heintz Robert Merkel Matt Barnard
Sharyl Rabinovici Dick Dreyer Jason Coray
Robert Merkel Kelly Cobeen Peggy Van Eepoel
Marguerite Bello Russell Berkowitz Mike Davies
Mike Cochran Amir Gilani Peter Lee
Peter Lee Daniel Zepada
ASCE 31 translation FEMA P-58

Time Limit and Disclaimer
Methodology Methodology
Doug Hohbach (Chair) Brian McDonald (Chair) Kate Stillwell (Chair)

David McCormick Bill Tremayne Robert Merkel
Michael Braund Curt Haselton Ken O'Dell
Saif Hussain Jon Heintz Michael Cochran
Brian Kehoe Marguerite Bello Daniel Zepeda
Albert Chen Ibbi Almufti Bryan Seamer
Brian McDonald Amir Gilani Rob Hendrickson
Roger Parra
Rating Types and Technical

TAC Voting Procedures
Review
Peter Lee (Chair) Kelly Cobeen (Chair)

Curt Haselton Michael Braund
Jason Coray Ron Mayes
Ken O'Dell
Robert Merkel
Doug Hohbach
Marko Schotanus
Kate Stillwell
Appendix F U.S. Resiliency Council

© 2015
Page |2
Founding Member Subcommittees

Governance Committee Founding Members Benefits Board Nomination
Evan Reis (Chair) Stacy Bartoletti (Chair) Chris Rojahn (Chair)

Chris Rojahn Bryan Seamer Eric Von Berg
David Friedman Kevin Moore Ryan Kersting
Eric Von Berg Henry Gallart Kevin O’Connell
Michael Cochran Saif Hussain Doug Hohbach
Rob Hendrickson Peter Lee Janiele Maffei
Ryan Kersting Peggy Van Eepoel Mary Comerio
Sharyl Rabinovici Dick Dreyer
Kate Stillwell Brian Kehoe
Bill Warren
Stakeholders Advisory Committee

Barbara Harrison FLASH
Bill Petak Social Science
Cesar Medina Nazca Construction Management
Dave Stivers Principal Capital
Dick McCarthy State SSC
Eileen Decker LA City
Eric Corey Freed Organic Architect
Gail Goldberg Exec. Dir ULI - LA
Ines Pearce Communications
Janice Olshesky Architect
Janiele Maffei CEA
Jay Raskin Architect
Jeff Soulages Intel - Oregon
Jim Clark Apartment Association of Greater LA
Johanna Cunningham Apartment Association of Southern Cities
John Bwarie Communications
John Hussey Rudolph Sletten
John Robbins Tenant Advisory Group
Judith Mitrani-Reiser Johns Hopkins
Laurence Kornfield San Francisco City
Laurie Johnson EERI - Public P0olicy
Lucy Arendt Social Science
Lucy Jones LA City - USGS
Mark Kroll, Andrew Hudacek Sares Regis - Developer

© 2015
Page |3
Martha Cox-Nitikman Dir. Public Policy - BOMA - LA

Michael Lingerfelt Architect
Patrick Otellini San Francisco City
Peter Herzog National Asso. of Industrial and Office Parks- NAIOP
Philip Arnatou Colliers International
Rob Hendrickson Attorney
Robert McIntire Nova Partners
Ron Lyn Building Dept. Clark County Nevada
Sharyl Rabinovici Social Science/Public Policy
Sorrel Hanson Marsh McLellan - Insurance
Stacey Lee San Francisoc City
Steven Saunders Contactor
Terry Brown Architect
Thalia Polychronis LA City
William Moor Boeing
John Mohle Clark Pacific - Contactors

© 2015

USRC Building Rating System For Earthqua

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

USRC Building Rating System For Earthqua

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

IMPLEMENTATION MANUAL

USRC BUILDING RATING SYSTEM

September 15, 2015

U.S. Resiliency Council

U.S. Resiliency Council

APPENDIX A – RATING CERTIFICATES

APPENDIX B – CERTIFICATION, DISCIPLINE AND APPEALS POLICIES

APPENDIX C – RATING REVIEW PROCEDURES

APPENDIX D – ASCE 31 EVALUATION METHODOLOGY

APPENDIX E – FEMA P58 BASED RATING METHODOLOGY

APPENDIX F – USRC DEVELOPMENT PARTICIPANTS

U.S. Resiliency Council

U.S. Resiliency Council

The Rating Process

U.S. Resiliency Council

Figure 1 - USRC Rating Process Flowchart

U.S. Resiliency Council

Rating Types – Transaction and Verified

USRC Certified Rating Professionals (CRP)

Rating Application Submission

U.S. Resiliency Council

Elevated reviews are not required to receive a Transaction Rating.

Granting of a USRC Rating

Confirmation of the Rating and the CRP by the USRC

Limitations and Disclaimer

U.S. Resiliency Council

Features of the USRC Building Rating System

U.S. Resiliency Council

Injuries and blocking of exit paths unlikely

Serious injuries unlikely

Loss of life unlikely

Loss of life possible in isolated locations

Loss of life likely in the building

U.S. Resiliency Council

U.S. Resiliency Council

Within days to weeks

Within weeks to months

Within months to a year

More than one year

U.S. Resiliency Council

Underlying Evaluation Methodologies

Seismic Hazard Level

Ratings DO NOT consider the performance of:

Time Limit on a Rating

Translating the underlying evaluation

The Rating Request Submission

Executive Summary of the Rating Application

An executive summary includes the following:

USRC Rating Certificates

U.S. Resiliency Council

U.S. Resiliency Council

U.S. Resiliency Council

Terms and Conditions

Appendix A U.S. Resiliency Council

Appendix A U.S. Resiliency Council

Appendix A U.S. Resiliency Council

Appendix A U.S. Resiliency Council

Appendix A U.S. Resiliency Council

2.1 Certification for Certified Rating Professionals (CRP) 1

2.2 Certification for Certified Rating Reviewer (CRR) 3

2.3 Certification Status 3

2.4 Certification Review Process 4

3.1 The Discipline Committee 5