a policy guide to steel moment frame construction · pdf filea policy guide to steel moment...

A Policy Guide to

Steel Moment Frame Construction

3 PDH / 3 CE Hours / 3 AIA LU/HSW

SAC Joint Venture2000

PDH AcademyPO Box 449

Pewaukee, WI 53072

[email protected]

888-564-9098

Policy Guide Steel Moment Frame Construction Final Exam

1. Leaning to one side is also known as __________________.

a. brittle fracturing b. out-of-plumb c. unanticipated damage d. economic loss 2. Some structures in the San Francisco Bay area have been discovered to have fracture

damage most probably dating to the Loma Prieta earthquake in __________. a. 1989

b. 1994 c. 1995 d. 2000 3. The steel moment-frame building is very popular for many building occupancies because

the absence of ______________ and structural walls allows complete freedom for interior space layout and aesthetic expression. a. steel columns b. vertical loads c. rigid beams d. diagonal braces

4. WSMF is also known as:

a. National Science Foundation b. welded steel moment-frames c. National Institute of Standards and Technology d. Federal Emergency Management Agency

5. Where do the most common cracks initiate in WSMF buildings? a. near divots b. on the column flanges c. in the weld itself or just next to the weld d. near the bolts

6. In its basic form, steel is a very ____________ material, able to undergo extensive deformation and distortion before breaking.

a. ductile b. rigid c. vulnerable d. hard 7. How many WSMF buildings are there?

a. Millions have been constructed in all regions of the United States. b. Tens of thousands have been constructed in all regions of the United States. c. Hundreds have been constructed in all regions of the United States. d. Thousands have been constructed in all regions of the United States. 8. FEMA _____________ contains recommended procedures for identifying earthquake

damage in WSMF buildings and the risk of continued occupancy. a. 352 b. 351

c. 350 d. 353 9. New buildings are designed to provide a high level of confidence, on the order of

_________%, that they will survive the most severe ground motion likely to be experienced, every 1,000 to 2,500 years, without collapse.

a. 100 b. 50 c. 85 d. 90 10. FEMA has developed standardized, GIS-based computer software that can help a

community to assess the risk that hazards present called ____________ that addresses earthquake risk. a. Project Impact

b. HazardUS c. AISC d. Northbridge

DISCLAIMER

This document provides information on the seismic performance of steel moment-frame structures and theresults and recommendations of an intensive research and development program that culminated in a seriesof engineering and construction criteria documents. It updates and replaces an earlier publication with thesame title and is primarily intended to provide building owners, regulators, and policy makers with summarylevel information on the earthquake risk associated with steel moment-frame buildings, and measures thatare available to address this risk. No warranty is offered with regard to the recommendationscontained herein, either by the Federal Emergency Management Agency, the SAC Joint Venture, theindividual Joint Venture partners, or their directors, members or employees or consultants. Theseorganizations and their employees do not assume any legal liability or responsibility for theaccuracy, completeness, or usefulness of any of the information, products or processes included inthis publication. The reader is cautioned to review carefully the material presented herein andexercise independent judgment as to its suitability for specific applications. This publication has beenprepared by the SAC Joint Venture with funding provided by the Federal Emergency Management Agency,under contract number EMW-95-C-4770.

Cover Art. The background photograph on the cover of this guide for Policy Makers is a cityscape of aportion of the financial district of the City of San Francisco. Each of the tall buildings visible in thiscityscape is a steel moment-frame building. Similar populations of these buildings exist in most otherAmerican cities and many thousands of smaller steel moment-frame buildings are present around theUnited States as well. Until the 1994 Northridge earthquake, many engineers regarded these buildings ashighly resistant to earthquake damage. The discovery of unanticipated fracturing of the steel framingfollowing the 1994 Northridge earthquake shattered this belief and called to question the safety of thesestructures.

A Policy Guide toSteel Moment-frame Construction

SAC Joint Venturea partnership of:

Structural Engineers Association of California (SEAOC)Applied Technology Council (ATC)

California Universities for Research in Earthquake Engineering (CUREe)

Prepared for SAC Joint Venture byRonald O. Hamburger

Project Oversight Committee

William J. Hall, ChairShirin Ader

John M. BarsomRoger Ferch

Theodore V. GalambosJohn Gross

James R. HarrisRichard Holguin

Nestor IwankiwRoy G. Johnston

Len JosephDuane K. Miller

John Theiss John H. Wiggins

SAC Project Management CommitteeSEAOC: William T. Holmes

ATC: Christoper RojahnCUREe: Robin Shepherd

Program Manager: Stephen A. MahinProject Director for Topical Investigations: James O. MalleyProject Director for Product Development: Ronald O. Hamburger

SAC Joint Venture

Structural Engineers Association of Californiawww.seaoc.org

Applied Technology Councilwww.atcouncil.org

California Universities for Research in Earthquake Engineeringwww.curee.edu

November, 2000

THE SAC JOINT VENTURE

SAC is a joint venture of the Structural Engineers Association of California (SEAOC), the AppliedTechnology Council (ATC), and California Universities for Research in Earthquake Engineering (CUREe),formed specifically to address both immediate and long-term needs related to solving performanceproblems with welded, steel moment-frame connections discovered following the 1994 Northridgeearthquake. SEAOC is a professional organization composed of more than 3,000 practicing structuralengineers in California. The volunteer efforts of SEAOC’s members on various technical committeeshave been instrumental in the development of the earthquake design provisions contained in the UniformBuilding Code and the 1997 National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program (NEHRP) RecommendedProvisions for Seismic Regulations for New Buildings and Other Structures. ATC is a nonprofitcorporation founded to develop structural engineering resources and applications to mitigate the effects ofnatural and other hazards on the built environment. Since its inception in the early 1970s, ATC hasdeveloped the technical basis for the current model national seismic design codes for buildings; the de-facto national standard for post earthquake safety evaluation of buildings; nationally applicable guidelinesand procedures for the identification, evaluation, and rehabilitation of seismically hazardous buildings; andother widely used procedures and data to improve structural engineering practice. CUREe is a nonprofitorganization formed to promote and conduct research and educational activities related to earthquakehazard mitigation. CUREe’s eight institutional members are the California Institute of Technology,Stanford University, the University of California at Berkeley, the University of California at Davis, theUniversity of California at Irvine, the University of California at Los Angeles, the University of California atSan Diego, and the University of Southern California. These university earthquake research laboratory,library, computer and faculty resources are among the most extensive in the United States. The SACJoint Venture allows these three organizations to combine their extensive and unique resources,augmented by consultants and subcontractor universities and organizations from across the nation, intoan integrated team of practitioners and researchers, uniquely qualified to solve problems related to theseismic performance of steel moment-frame structures.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTSFunding for Phases I and II of the SAC Steel Program to Reduce the Earthquake Hazards of SteelMoment-Frame Structures was principally provided by the Federal Emergency Management Agency, withten percent of the Phase I program funded by the State of California, Office of Emergency Services.Substantial additional support, in the form of donated materials, services, and data has been provided bya number of individual consulting engineers, inspectors, researchers, fabricators, materials suppliers andindustry groups. Special efforts have been made to maintain a liaison with the engineering profession,researchers, the steel industry, fabricators, code-writing organizations and model code groups, buildingofficials, insurance and risk-management groups, and federal and state agencies active in earthquakehazard mitigation efforts. SAC wishes to acknowledge the support and participation of each of the abovegroups, organizations and individuals. In particular, we wish to acknowledge the contributions provided bythe American Institute of Steel Construction, the Lincoln Electric Company, the National Institute ofStandards and Technology, the National Science Foundation, and the Structural Shape ProducersCouncil. SAC also takes this opportunity to acknowledge the efforts of the project participants – themanagers, investigators, writers, and editorial and production staff – whose work has contributed to thedevelopment of these documents. Finally, SAC extends special acknowledgement to Mr. MichaelMahoney, FEMA Project Officer, and Dr. Robert Hanson, FEMA Technical Advisor, for their continuedsupport and contribution to the success of this effort.

1

INTRODUCTIONThe Northridge earthquake of January 17, 1994,caused widespread building damage throughoutsome of the most heavily populated communitiesof Southern California including the SanFernando Valley, Santa Monica and West LosAngeles, resulting in estimated economic lossesexceeding $30 billion. Much of the damagesustained was quite predictable, occurring intypes of buildings that engineers had previouslyidentified as having low seismic resistance andsignificant risk of damage in earthquakes. Thisincluded older masonry and concrete buildings,but not steel framed buildings. Surprisingly,however, a number of modern, welded, steel,moment-frame buildings also sustainedsignificant damage. This damage consisted of abrittle fracturing of the steel frames at the weldedjoints between the beams (horizontal framingmembers) and columns (vertical framingmembers). A few of the most severely damagedbuildings could readily be observed to be out-of-plumb (leaning to one side). However, many ofthe damaged buildings exhibited no outwardsigns of these fractures, making damagedetection both difficult and costly. Then, exactlyone year later, on January 17, 1995, the city ofKobe, Japan also experienced a largeearthquake, causing similar unanticipateddamage to steel moment-frame buildings.

Following discovery of hidden damage inLos Angeles area buildings, the potential forsimilar, undiscovered damage in SanFrancisco and other communities affected bypast earthquakes was raised.

Ventura Boulevard in the San FernandoValley. Many of these buildings had hiddendamage.

Prior to the 1994 Northridge and 1995 Kobeearthquakes, engineers believed that steelmoment-frames would behave in a ductilemanner, bending under earthquake loading, butnot breaking. As a result, this became one ofthe most common types of construction used formajor buildings in areas subject to severeearthquakes. The discovery of the potential forfracturing in these frames called to question theadequacy of the building code provisions dealingwith this type of construction and created a crisisof confidence around the world. Engineers didnot have clear guidance on how to detectdamage, repair the damage they found, assessthe safety of existing buildings, upgradebuildings found to be deficient or design newsteel moment-frame structures to performadequately in earthquakes. The observeddamage also raised questions as to whetherbuildings in cities affected by other pastearthquakes had sustained similar undetecteddamage and were now weakened and potentiallyhazardous. In fact, some structures in the SanFrancisco Bay area have been discovered tohave similar fracture damage most probablydating to the 1989 Loma Prieta earthquake.

In response to the many concerns raised bythese damage discoveries, the FederalEmergency Management Agency (FEMA)sponsored a program of directed investigationand development to identify the cause of thedamage, quantify the risk inherent in steelstructures and develop practical and effective

2

engineering criteria for mitigation of this risk.FEMA contracted with the SAC Joint Venture, apartnership of the Structural EngineersAssociation of California (SEAOC), aprofessional association with more than 3,000members; the Applied Technology Council(ATC), a non-profit foundation dedicated to thetranslation of structural engineering research intostate-of-art practice guidelines; and theCalifornia Universities for Research inEarthquake Engineering (CUREe), a consortiumof eight California universities withcomprehensive earthquake engineeringresearch facilities and personnel. The resultingFEMA/SAC project was conducted over a periodof 6 years at a cost of $12 million and includedthe participation of hundreds of leadingpracticing engineers, university researchers,industry associations, contractors, materialssuppliers, inspectors and building officials fromaround the United States. These efforts werecoordinated with parallel efforts conducted byother agencies, including the National ScienceFoundation and National Institute of Standardsand Technology (NIST), and with concurrentefforts in other nations, including a largeprogram in Japan. In all, hundreds of tests ofmaterial specimens and large-scale structuralassemblies were conducted, as well asthousands of computerized analyticalinvestigations.

As the project progressed, interim guidancedocuments were published to provide practicingengineers and the construction industry withimportant information on the lessons learned, aswell as recommendations for investigation,repair, upgrade, and design of steel moment-frame buildings. Many of theserecommendations have already beenincorporated into recent building codes. Thisproject culminated with the publication of fourengineering practice guideline documents.These four volumes include state-of-the-artrecommendations that should be included infuture building codes, as well as guidelines thatmay be applied voluntarily to assess and reducethe earthquake risk in our communities.

This policy guide has been prepared to provide anontechnical summary of the valuableinformation contained in the FEMA/SACpublications, an understanding of the riskassociated with steel moment-frame buildings,and the practical measures that can be taken toreduce this risk. It is anticipated that this guidewill be of interest to building owners and tenants,members of the financial and insuranceindustries, and to government planners and thebuilding regulation community.

Prog

ram

to

Red

uce

the

Eart

hqua

ke H

azar

ds o

f

Ste

el M

omen

t Fra

me

Stru

ctur

es

FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY FEMA 353 / July, 2000

Recommended Seismic Design Criteria ForNew Steel Moment-Frame Buildings

Prog

ram

to

Red

uce

the

Eart

hqua

ke H

azar

ds o

f

Ste

el M

omen

t Fra

me

Stru

ctur

es

FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY FEMA 352 /July, 2000


Prog

ram

to

Red

uce

the

Eart

hqua

ke H

azar

ds o

f

Ste

el M

omen

t Fra

me

Stru

ctur

es

FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY FEMA 351 /July, 2000


Prog

ram

to

Red

uce

the

Eart

hqua

ke H

azar

ds o

f

Ste

el M

omen

t Fra

me

Stru

ctur

es



FEMA 350 Recommended Seismic DesignCriteria for New Steel Moment-FrameBuildings

FEMA 351 Recommended Seismic Evaluationand Upgrade Criteria for Existing WeldedSteel Moment-Frame Buildings

FEMA 352 Recommended Post-earthquakeEvaluation and Repair Criteria for WeldedSteel Moment-Frame Buildings

FEMA 353 Recommended Specifications andQuality Assurance Guidelines for SteelMoment-Frame Construction for SeismicApplications

3

AN OVERVIEW OF THE PROBLEM

What is a steel moment-frame building?

All steel-framed buildings derive basic structuralsupport for the building weight from a skeleton(or frame) composed of horizontal steel beamsand vertical steel columns. In addition to beingable to support vertical loads, including theweight of the building itself and the contents,structures must also be able to resist lateral(horizontal) forces produced by wind andearthquakes. In some steel frame structures,this lateral resistance is derived from thepresence of diagonal braces or masonry orconcrete walls. In steel moment-framebuildings, the ends of the beams are rigidlyjoined to the columns so that the buildings canresist lateral wind and earthquake forces withoutthe assistance of additional braces or walls.This style of construction is very popular formany building occupancies, because theabsence of diagonal braces and structural wallsallows complete freedom for interior spacelayout and aesthetic exterior expression.

A steel moment-frame is an assembly ofbeams and columns, rigidly joined togetherto resist both vertical and lateral forces.

Construction of a modern steel framebuilding in which the ends of beams arerigidly joined to columns by weldedconnections.

Are all steel moment-frame buildingsvulnerable to the type of damage thatoccurred in the Northridge earthquake?

The steel moment-frame buildings damaged inthe 1994 Northridge earthquake are a specialtype, known as welded steel moment-frames(WSMF). This is because the beams andcolumns in these structures are connected withwelded joints. WSMF construction first becamepopular in the 1960s. In earlier buildings, theconnections between the beams and columnswere either bolted or riveted. While these olderbuildings also may be vulnerable to earthquakedamage, they did not experience the type ofconnection fractures discovered following theNorthridge earthquake. Generally, welded steelmoment-frame buildings constructed in theperiod 1964-1994 should be consideredvulnerable to this damage. Buildingsconstructed after 1994 and incorporatingconnection design and fabrication practicesrecommended by the FEMA/SAC program areanticipated to have significantly less vulnerability.

4

What does the damage consist of?

The damage discovered in WSMF buildingsconsists of a fracturing, or cracking, of thewelded connections between the beams andcolumns that form the frame, or skeleton, of thestructure. This damage occurs most commonlyat the welded joint between a column and thebottom flange of a beam. Once a crack hasstarted, it can continue in any of several differentpatterns and in some cases has been found tocompletely sever beams or columns.

Damage consists of fractures or cracks thatinitiate in the welded joints of the beams tocolumns.

Damage ranges from small cracks that aredifficult to see, to much larger cracks. Here,a crack began at the weld and progressedinto the column flange, withdrawing a divotof material.

What does the damage look like?

There are several common types of damage,each of which looks somewhat different. Themost common cracks initiate in the weld itself orjust next to the weld. These cracks often arevery thin and difficult to see. In a few cases,cracks cannot be seen at all. In some cases,cracks cause large scoop-like pieces of thecolumn flange, called divots, to be pulled out. Instill other cases, the cracks run across the entirecolumn, practically dividing it into twounconnected pieces.

What is the effect of the damage?

WSMF buildings rely on the connectionsbetween their beams and columns to resist windand earthquake loads. When the welded jointsthat form these connections break, the buildingloses some of the strength and stiffness it needsto resist these loads. The magnitude andsignificance of this capacity loss depends on theunique design and construction attributes ofeach building, as well as the extent and type ofdamage sustained. Few buildings weredamaged so severely in the Northridgeearthquake that they represented imminentcollapse hazards. However, significantweakening of some buildings did occur. Oncethe welded joints fracture, other types of damagecan also occur including damage to bolted joints.Damage that results in the complete severing ofbeams or columns or their connections poses aserious problem and could result in the potentialfor localized collapse.

Fracturing of welded connections can lead todamage to the bolted connections that holdthe beams onto the columns, creatingpotential for localized collapse.

5

Why did this damage occur?

We now understand that the vulnerability ofWSMF structures is a result of a number of inter-related factors. Early research, conducted in the1960s and 70s suggested that a particular styleof connection could perform adequately.Designers then routinely began to specify thisconnection in their designs. However, theparticular style of connection tends toconcentrate high stresses at some of theweakest points in the assembly, and in fact,some of the early research showed somepotential vulnerability. As the cost ofconstruction labor increased, relative to the priceof construction materials, engineers adopteddesigns that minimized the number ofconnections in each building, resulting in largermembers and increased loads on theconnections. At the same time, the industryadopted a type of welding that could be used tomake these connections more quickly, butsometimes resulted in welds that were moresusceptible to cracking. Although building codesrequired that inspectors ensure the quality of thiswelding, the inspection techniques andprocedures used were often not adequate.Finally, the steel industry found new ways toeconomically produce structural steel with higherstrength. Although the steel became stronger,designers were unaware of this and continued tospecify the same connections. Often, theseconnections did not have adequate strength tomatch the newer steel material and weretherefore, even more vulnerable. In the end, thetypical connections used in WSMF buildingswere just not adequate to withstand the severedemands produced by an earthquake.

Fractures commonly initiate at the weldedjoint of the beam bottom flange to column.

The typical connection used prior to 1994.Severe stress concentrations inherent in itsconfiguration were not considered in thedesign.

How widespread was this damage?

Although no comprehensive survey of all of thesteel buildings affected by the Northridgeearthquake has been conducted, the City of LosAngeles did enact an ordinance that requiredmandatory inspection of nearly 200 buildings inareas that experienced the most intense groundshaking. Initial reports from this mandatoryinspection program erroneously indicated thatnearly every one of these buildings hadexperienced damage and in some cases, thatthis damage was extensive. It was projectedthat perhaps thousands of buildings had beendamaged. It is now known that damage wasmuch less widespread than originally thoughtand that many of the conditions that wereoriginally identified as damage actually wereimperfections in the original construction work.Of the nearly 200 buildings that were inspectedunder the City of Los Angeles ordinance, it nowappears that only about 1/3 had any actualearthquake damage and that more than 90% ofthe total damage discovered occurred within asmall group of approximately 30 buildings.Therefore, although this damage was significant,and does warrant a change in the design andconstruction practices prevalent prior to 1994, itappears that the risk of severe damage tobuildings is relatively slight, except under veryintense ground shaking.

6

Engineers expect steel to be ductile, capableof extensive bending and deformationwithout fracturing, as shown in this testspecimen. The development of cracks in thesteel at relatively low levels of loading wasunexpected.

Why was this damage a surprise?

In its basic form, steel is a very ductile material,able to undergo extensive deformation anddistortion before breaking. This is the type ofbehavior desired for earthquake resistance, soengineers believed WSMF buildings would bequite earthquake resistant. Following the 1971San Fernando earthquake, the 1987 WhittierNarrows earthquake, and the 1989 Loma Prietaearthquake, there were few reports of significantdamage to steel buildings, especially ascompared to other types of construction,confirming this general belief. However,relatively few WSMF buildings were subjected tosevere ground motion in these events. As theindustry’s confidence in the ability of WSMFbuildings to resist earthquake damage grew,design practice, material production processesand construction techniques changed, addingunexpected vulnerability. The 1994 Northridgeearthquake was the first event in which a largenumber of recently constructed WSMF buildingswere subjected to strong ground motion.

Have other earthquakes caused similardamage?

When damaged WSMF buildings were firstdiscovered following the Northridge earthquake,there was speculation that this was a result ofsome peculiar characteristic of the earthquakeitself or of local design and constructionpractices in the Los Angeles region. It has nowbeen confirmed that similar damage occurred tosome buildings affected by the 1989 Loma Prietaearthquake and also the 1992 Landers and BigBear earthquakes. In 1995, the Kobeearthquake resulted in damage to severalhundred steel buildings, and the collapse of 50older steel buildings. Japanese researchershave confirmed problems similar to thoseexperienced in the Northridge earthquake.Engineering researchers around the world haverecognized this behavior as a common problemfor welded steel moment-frame buildingsdesigned and constructed using practicesprevalent prior to the Northridge earthquake andhave been working together to find solutions.

Many steel moment-frame buildings weredamaged in the 1995 Kobe earthquake. Thebuilding shown here, lying on its side, is oneof more than 50 older steel buildings thatcollapsed.

7

How many WSMF buildings are there?

Thousands of WSMF buildings have beenconstructed in all regions of the United States.One of the factors contributing to theseriousness of this problem is that WSMFconstruction is often used in many of the nation’smost important facilities, including hospitalbuildings, emergency command centers andother federal, state and local government officebuildings. It is commonly used for commercialoffice structures. Most high-rise buildingsconstructed in the United States in the last 30years incorporate this type of construction.WSMF construction has also frequently beenused for mid-rise and to a lesser extent, low-risecommercial and institutional construction,auditoriums and other assembly occupancies,and has seen limited application in industrialfacilities. It is relatively uncommon in residentialconstruction, although some high-risecondominium type buildings are of thisconstruction type.

Many of the tallest buildings in our majorcities are of WSMF construction.

Are existing WSMF structures safe?

No structure is absolutely safe and, if subjectedto sufficiently large loads, a structure made ofany material will collapse. Building codes in theUnited States permit structures to be damagedby strong earthquakes, but attempt to preventcollapse for the most severe levels of groundmotion which can be expected at the site. NoWSMF structure in the United States has evercollapsed as a result of earthquake loading.However, research conducted as part of theFEMA/SAC project confirms that WSMFstructures with the style of beam-columnconnection typically used prior to the Northridgeearthquake have a higher risk of earthquake-induced collapse than desired for new buildings.

How does the risk of WSMF structurescompare to other types of buildings?

Many other types of buildings present muchgreater risks of collapse than do WSMFbuildings. Based on observations from pastearthquakes, buildings that present greater risksinclude buildings of unreinforced masonryconstruction, buildings of concrete and masonryconstruction that pre-date the mid-1970s,buildings of precast concrete construction andeven some types of wood frame construction.However, many WSMF buildings are large andhouse many occupants. The earthquake-inducedcollapse of one such structure could result in avery large and unacceptable life loss.

Older concrete frame, tilt-up and masonry buildings are generally more prone to earthquake-induced collapse than WSMF buildings.

8

AFTER THE NEXT EARTHQUAKE

Can one tell if a WSMF building isdamaged?

Some damaged WSMF buildings permanentlylean to one side after an earthquake and havesevere damage to finishes, providing a clearindication that the building has sustainedstructural damage. However, many WSMFbuildings do not exhibit any obvious signs ofdamage. To determine if these buildings aredamaged, it is necessary to conduct anengineering inspection of the framing andconnections. To conduct these inspections, it isnecessary first to remove building finishes andfireproofing. These inspections can be disruptiveof occupancy and very expensive, ranging froma few hundred dollars to more than onethousand dollars per connection. Largebuildings may have several thousandconnections. The presence of asbestos,sometimes used in fireproofing in buildingsconstructed prior to 1979, substantially increasesthe inspection costs.

The most severely damaged buildings willoften lean to one side. However, there maybe no obvious indications of the damage insome buildings.

Is it safe to occupy a damaged building?

If a building is severely damaged, there is a riskthat aftershocks or subsequent strong winds orearthquakes may cause partial or total collapseof the building. The more severe the damage,the higher this risk. Most buildings damaged bythe Northridge earthquake were judged to besafe for continued occupancy while repairs weremade. FEMA 352 provides engineeringprocedures that can be used by building officialsand engineers to quantify the risk associatedwith continued occupancy of damaged buildings.FEMA 352 also provides recommendations as towhen a building should be deemed unsafe forfurther occupancy.

How does an owner know if a building issafe?

Following an earthquake, building departmentswill typically perform rapid inspections of affectedbuildings to identify buildings that may beunsafe. Once such an inspection has beenperformed, the building department will typicallypost the building with a placard that indicateswhether the building is safe for occupancy.FEMA 352 provides procedures that buildingofficials can use to conduct these rapidinspections. If the building department doesn’tprovide this service, building owners can retainprivate engineers or inspection firms for thispurpose.

9

Is the building department inspectionenough?

Rapid inspections conducted by buildingdepartments after an earthquake are intended toidentify those buildings at greatest risk ofendangering the public safety. They are notadequate to detect all damage a building hassustained. If a building has experienced strongground motion, the building owner should retainan engineer to conduct more thoroughinspections in accordance with FEMA 352, evenif the building department posts the building assafe.

After an earthquake, is it necessary toinspect every WSMF building?

The amount of damage sustained by a buildingis closely related to the severity of ground motionat the building site. Unless a buildingexperiences strong ground motion, it is unlikelythat it will sustain significant damage. FEMA 352recommends that all buildings thought to haveexperienced ground motion in excess of certainlevels be subjected to detailed inspections todetermine if they sustained significant damage.Because detailed inspections can be timeconsuming and costly, FEMA 352 alsorecommends that an initial, rapid investigation beperformed to look for obvious signs of severedamage that could pose an immediate threat tolife safety.

Is it necessary to inspect everyconnection in a building?

The only way to ensure that all damage in astructure is found is to inspect all of theconnections. However, as previously discussed,connection inspections are costly and disruptive.Therefore most owners would prefer not toinspect every connection, if possible. Becausedamage tends to be distributed throughout astructure, it is possible to inspect a sample of thetotal number of connections in a building andmake judgments as to how widespread damageis likely to be throughout the entire building.FEMA 352 provides recommendations forselecting an appropriate sample and drawingconclusions on the condition of the building,based on the damage found in the sample.

Prog

ram

to

Red

uce t

he E

arth

quak

e Haz

ards

of

Ste

el M

omen

t Fra

me S

truc

ture

s


Recommended Post-earthquakeEvaluation and Repair Criteriafor Welded Steel Moment-FrameBuildings

FEMA 352 contains recommendedprocedures for identifying earthquakedamage in WSMF buildings and the risk ofcontinued occupancy.

Is it possible to repair any damagedbuilding?

It is technically possible to repair almost anydamaged building. However, if a building isseverely damaged, the cost of repair mayexceed the replacement cost. Repair may beparticularly difficult and costly if a building hasexperienced large, permanent sidewaysdisplacement, sometimes called drift. In suchcases, the structure may even be unsafe foroccupancy even for repair. In these cases, itmay make more sense to demolish a buildingand replace it rather than to repair it. Followingthe 1994 Northridge earthquake, the owner ofone building elected to do this.

10

How is the fracture damage repaired?

Each type of fracture requires a somewhatdifferent repair procedure. FEMA 352 providesrecommendations for many types of repair.Generally, repairs consist of local removal of thedamaged steel using cutting torches or electricarcs, and welding new, undamaged materialback in its place. To do this cutting and weldingsafely, it is necessary first to remove anycombustible finishes from the work area andalso to provide ventilation to remove potentiallyharmful fumes. In some cases, it may benecessary to provide temporary shoring of thedamaged element while the repair work is done.These operations are disruptive to normaloccupancy of the immediate work area and alsoquite costly. Typical connection repair costs canrange from $10,000 to $20,000. Additional costsare associated with the temporary loss of use offloor space during repair operations.

FEMA 352 provides detailed repairprocedures for different types of damage.One repair procedure is shown here as anexample.

11

DEALING WITH THE RISK OF EXISTING BUILDINGS

Is it possible to upgrade an existingWSMF building?

It is technically feasible to upgrade an existingsteel moment-frame building and improve itsprobable performance in future earthquakes.The most common methods are upgrades of theindividual connections, addition of steel braces,concrete or masonry walls, or addition of energydissipation systems. Each of these approachesmay offer advantages in particular buildings.

Buildings can be upgraded by modifyingconnections, adding braces and othermethods.

Connections can be upgraded by welding orbolting new plates onto the beams andcolumns to change the connection shapeand reduce stress concentrations. In somecases, it may also be appropriate to replacedefective welds and welds with lowtoughness with welds with improvedtoughness and workmanship.

What is a connection upgrade?

Connection upgrades are the most directapproach to improving the seismic performanceof an existing steel moment-frame structure. Aspreviously discussed, existing connections canfracture because their shape results in thedevelopment of large stress concentrations;some welds have large defects that reduce theirstrength and the weld metal itself may be of lowtoughness and unable to resist the largestresses imposed on it. Connection upgradesaddress these problems directly by modifying theshape of the connection to reduce the stressconcentrations. In addition, depending on theapproach used, the upgrade may includereplacement of defective welds and welds withlow toughness with new welds that haveimproved toughness and better workmanship.FEMA 351 provides information and designcriteria for a number of alternative methods ofupgrading connections.

12

How does the addition of braces or wallsupgrade a building?

Connection fractures occur when the forcedelivered by the earthquake exceeds theconnection strength or when connectionelements experience low-cycle fatigue. This issimilar to what happens to a paper clip, when itis bent back and forth repeatedly. As the metalis bent back and forth, it dissipates energy, butalso becomes damaged. Eventually, so muchdamage occurs that the metal breaks. If aconnection is bent through a large angle ofdeformation, or is relatively weak or brittle, it mayonly be able to withstand one or two cycles, thatis, be bent back and forth once or twice.However, if the bending deformation is relativelysmall, or if the connection material has hightoughness, the connection may be able towithstand a number of such cycles.Earthquakes produce many cycles of motion.

When steel braces or masonry or concrete wallsare added to a building, they stiffen it and reducethe amount that the building will sway in anearthquake. This reduces the amount ofbending on the connections. Guidance on theuse of these techniques is already available insuch publications as FEMA-273, NEHRPGuidelines for Seismic Rehabilitation of Buildingsand, therefore, is not repeated in FEMA 351.

Energy dissipation systems are typicallyinstalled in buildings as part of a verticalbracing system that extends between thebuilding’s floors.

Prog

ram

to

Red

uce

the

Eart

hqua

ke H

azar

ds o

f

Ste

el M

omen

t Fra

me

Stru

ctur

es


Recommended Seismic Evaluation and UpgradeCriteria for Existing WeldedSteel Moment-Frame Buildings

FEMA 351 provides engineering proceduresfor evaluating the probable performance ofbuildings in future earthquakes. Theseprocedures address the safety as well asfinancial aspects of earthquake performance.

What is an energy dissipation system?

Energy dissipation systems reduce the amountthat buildings sway in an earthquake byconverting the earthquake’s energy into heat.Several types of energy dissipation devices areavailable. One type is a hydraulic cylinder,similar to the shock absorbers in an automobile.Other types dissipate energy through friction. Inorder for these systems to be effective, one endof the device must move relative to the otherend. The most common way to do this is toinstall the dissipation devices as part of abracing system between the building floors. Asthe building sways in an earthquake and onefloor moves relative to another, this drives thedevice and dissipates the energy as heat.Detailed guidance on the design of energydissipation systems is already available in suchdocuments as FEMA 273 NEHRP Guidelines forSeismic Rehabilitation of Buildings and,therefore, is not covered in detail in the steelmoment-frame criteria documents.

13

What type of upgrade is best?

No one type of upgrade is best for all buildings.Basic factors that affect selection of an optimalalternative include the individual building’scharacteristics, the severity of motion anticipatedat the building site, desired buildingperformance, cost of the upgrade, the feasibilityof performing upgrade work while the buildingremains occupied, and the effect of the upgradeon building appearance and space utilization.Addition of diagonal bracing may be the leastcostly alternative; however, its effect on buildingappearance and functionality may be viewed bysome owners as unacceptable. Addition ofenergy dissipation devices will result in betterperformance of the building, but may cost more.Modification of individual connections wouldhave the least effect on building appearance, butwould inconvenience the existing tenants morethan some other approaches and may cost moreto implement.

How does an owner pick an appropriateupgrade approach?

To determine the best method of upgrading abuilding, an owner should retain an engineer toevaluate the building’s probable earthquakeperformance. An upgrade should be consideredif the probable performance is unacceptable. Inthe absence of ordinances that require upgradeof buildings, it will be necessary for each ownerto decide what constitutes acceptableperformance. The engineer can assist theowner in understanding the various options.Once a performance objective is selected, theengineer can prepare preliminary designs forvarious upgrade approaches, together withestimates of probable construction cost. Theowner can then select the most appropriatedesign considering the cost, structuralperformance improvements, aesthetics andother impacts of each upgrade approach on thebuilding.

Should all existing WSMF buildings beupgraded?

A building should be upgraded only if the risk oflosses associated with its probable performancein future earthquakes is deemed unacceptable.Individual owners may make this judgement, orin some cases, the local community may decidethat risk is unacceptable. The severity ofearthquake risk associated with a building’sperformance in future earthquakes, as well asthe acceptability of this risk, must be determinedon a building-specific basis. The earthquakeperformance of some WSMF buildings housingcritical occupancies and located in zones likely toexperience frequent intense ground motion maybe unacceptable, whereas many other WSMFbuildings will be capable of performingadequately in the levels of ground motion theyare likely to experience. To determine if abuilding should be upgraded, an owner shouldretain the services of an engineer to evaluate thebuilding’s probable performance in futureearthquakes, permitting the owner to balance theassessed risks against the cost of mitigation.

What is the cost of upgrading a WSMF?

Upgrade costs are dependent on a number offactors including the upgrade approach selected,the structural configuration of the building, thespecific seismic deficiencies present, theseverity of earthquake motion used as a basisfor design, the intended performance of theupgraded building, the building’s occupancy, andthe nature of tenant improvements andfurnishings. Costs can range from about $10per square foot of building floor area to as muchas $30 or more. This can be compared to thetypical costs associated with new buildingconstruction. Exclusive of the costs of landacquisition, planning and design, theconstruction cost of a new steel frame buildingshell will range from about $70 to $125 persquare foot. The cost of tenant improvements,including interior partitions, ceilings, lighting, andfurnishings can equal the building constructioncosts.

14

When is the best time to upgrade?

Much of the cost of performing a seismicupgrade relates to the need to demolish andrestore architectural finishes and to displacetenants temporarily from construction workareas. In many commercial buildings thesecosts are incurred on a regular, periodic basis asleases expire and tenants in a building change.Therefore, the most economical time to performan upgrade is during a change of tenantoccupancy. Most buildings have many tenantswith staggered lease periods. If upgrade work isto be done when tenant space is being changedfrom one leaseholder to the next, it will usuallybe necessary to phase the work over a period ofyears. If such an approach is taken, theprobable performance of the building in theevent that an earthquake occurs while it is onlypartially upgraded should be evaluated for eachof the potential stages of completion, to ensurethat an unsafe condition is not createdinadvertently. Another beneficial time to performupgrade work is at the time of property transfer.If upgrade work is done as part of a buildingownership transfer, financing can includeadditional funding to perform the upgrade work.

Is upgrading economically feasible?

The feasibility of an upgrade depends on theindividual economic circumstances of eachbuilding, its tenants and owners. Earthquakesare infrequent events. Even in areas of highseismic risk, like California, most buildings willexperience at most only one or perhaps twodamaging earthquakes over their lives. Seismicupgrades can greatly reduce the financial andlife losses that occur as a result of suchearthquakes. However, because the probabilityof occurrence of a damaging earthquake isusually small, the present value of these avoidedlosses rarely exceeds the initial cost of theupgrade unless there are large life loss oroccupancy interruption costs associated with thepotential damage. If upgrades are performedconcurrently with other building renovation work,such as remodeling or asbestos removal, theupgrade work will cost less and produce a moreattractive return on the investment.

How can an owner evaluate a building’sprobable future performance?

To determine the probable performance of abuilding in future earthquakes, an owner shouldretain an engineer. FEMA 351 providesstructural engineers with several methods forevaluating the probable performance of buildingsin future earthquakes. These methods includeSimplified Loss Estimation, Detailed LossEstimation and Detailed PerformanceEvaluation, a procedure that is compatible withmodern performance-based design approaches.

How can an owner tell if a building willbe safe in future earthquakes?

FEMA 351 presents engineering procedures thatcan be used to estimate the probability that abuilding will experience life-threatening damagein future earthquakes. The ability of a building toresist earthquakes without endangering life isdependent on two primary factors, the capacityof the building and the intensity of futureearthquake ground motion. It must beremembered that any building has the potentialto experience life-threatening damage, if itexperiences sufficiently intense ground motion.In typical regions with significant earthquake risk,earthquakes that produce low levels of groundmotion may be felt relatively frequently, perhapsone time every ten to twenty years. Such groundmotion rarely causes damage. Intense groundmotion, capable of causing severe damage tomodern buildings, will occur much lessfrequently, perhaps only one time in a fewhundred to a few thousand years. Theprocedures of FEMA 351 allow determination ofthe probability that a building will experienceeither partial or total collapse, if earthquakeground motion of a specified intensity occurs. Touse this method, the owner and engineer mustagree upon an appropriate return period for theground motion to be used as a basis for theevaluation. The return period is the averagenumber of years, for example, 100, 500, etc.,between damage-causing earthquakes.

15

What is the Simplified Loss EstimationMethodology?

The Simplified Loss Estimation Methodologycontained in FEMA 351 consists of a series ofgraphs that indicate the probability that WSMFbuildings will experience various levels ofdamage if they are subjected to certain levels ofground motion. These graphs were compiledfrom data obtained for buildings in the LosAngeles area following the 1994 Northridgeearthquake. To use these graphs, an engineermust estimate an intensity of ground motion towhich a building will be subjected. Using thegraph, an engineer can obtain an estimate of thepercentage of the building’s connections that willbe damaged and the probable cost of connectionrepairs, if the building experiences anearthquake of a certain intensity. These graphsdo not take into account the individualcharacteristics of a building, except in anapproximate manner and, therefore, do notprovide precise estimates. Rather, they providean indication of the potential range of damageand repair costs and the probability that damageand repair costs will exceed certain amounts,based on the behavior of the buildings that wereaffected by the Northridge earthquake.

The Simplified Loss Estimation Methodologyuses a series of graphs to relate probableearthquake losses to ground motionintensity.

What is the Detailed Loss EstimationMethodology?

In addition to the Simplified Loss EstimationMethodology, FEMA 351 also presents aprocedure for developing building-specific,damage and loss estimates for WSMF buildings.This method can be implemented in HAZUS,FEMA’s nationally applicable loss estimationmodel, to explore the potential benefits to acommunity of requiring upgrade of steelbuildings. The method can also be used todevelop loss estimates for individual buildings toassist owners in making upgrade decisions.Loss estimates generated using this techniquetake into consideration the specificcharacteristics of individual buildings and,therefore, provide a more accurate basis forcost-benefit studies for seismic upgrades.However, the method is somewhat complex andrequires specialized expertise and training toimplement.

How safe should an existing buildingbe?

There is no single commonly accepted minimumlevel of safety for existing buildings. However, itis always useful to compare the safety of anexisting building with that intended for newbuildings as well as with that of other existingbuildings. New buildings are designed to providea high level of confidence, on the order of 90%,that they will survive the most severe groundmotion likely to be experienced, every 1,000 to2,500 years, without collapse. Therefore, it isunlikely that most new buildings would everexperience earthquake-induced collapse. Mostexisting buildings will not be capable of providingthe same performance as a new building. Anexisting building may be acceptably safe if it canprovide high confidence that it will resist collapseunder ground motion intensities likely to occurevery 500 years or so. The selection of anacceptable level of safety depends on a numberof factors including the number of occupants inthe building, and its use. FEMA 351 presentsevaluation procedures that can be used toestimate the probability that a building willcollapse in future earthquake ground motion andto associate a confidence level with thisestimate.

16

Will it be possible to reuse a buildingafter an earthquake?

In addition to safety concerns, many owners andtenants in buildings are concerned with theirability to return to a building after an earthquake,and continue to live or work in it. FEMA 351provides an evaluation procedure that may beused to determine the probability that a buildingwill experience so much damage that it shouldnot be reoccupied following an earthquake. Touse this procedure, it is necessary for the ownerand the engineer to select an appropriate returnperiod for the ground motion upon which thisevaluation will be based and the performancethat will be acceptable if this ground motionoccurs.

Is it cost effective to upgrade?

While earthquakes can cause catastrophicdamage, in most cases the probability that abuilding will be affected by such an event is low.Even in the most seismically active regions ofCalifornia, ground motions likely to causesubstantial damage to WSMF buildings arecurrently projected to affect a building site onlyone time every hundred years or so. Given thatmany investors retain ownership in a buildingasset for a relatively small number of years, thelikelihood that a loss will actually occur during anownership period is low. Therefore, whenowners balance the cost of a seismic upgradeprogram against the probable economic benefitto be gained during their ownership period, agood return on investment is often found to existonly if post-earthquake occupancy of a buildingis perceived to be critical for economic or otherreasons, or if life loss is anticipated and theeconomic value of such loss is included in theevaluation.

Why is building performance expressedin probabilities?

The amount of damage that a building willsustain in an earthquake depends on a numberof factors including the configuration andstrength of the building, the quality of itsconstruction, and the specific characteristics ofthe ground motion produced by the earthquake.Although engineers can develop estimates ofeach of these factors, it is not possible to predictany of these things precisely. Therefore,engineers must express future buildingperformance in probabilistic terms.

Should communities adopt mandatoryupgrade programs for steel framebuildings?

Given the low benefit/cost ratio for seismicupgrade of steel frame buildings, it is unlikelythat many owners will perform such upgradesvoluntarily. Mandatory upgrade ordinances canbe an effective measure to assure that thesebuildings are upgraded. For example, a numberof California cities, including Los Angeles andSan Francisco, have successfully implementedordinances requiring upgrade of unreinforcedmasonry buildings, a type of building that cancollapse in even moderate earthquakes.However, similar ordinances requiring upgradeof WSMF buildings may not be an effectiveapplication of the limited resources available to acommunity. It is likely that other financial andhealth risks faced by the community are moresignificant than the hazards posed by theearthquake performance of steel framebuildings. Indeed, many communities have largeinventories of buildings that are far morehazardous than typical steel frame buildings,including unreinforced masonry buildings andolder concrete buildings. Before adopting amandatory upgrade ordinance for steel framebuildings, communities should carefully considerthe costs and benefits on a community-widebasis and weigh these against other potentialapplications of the limited resources available.FEMA’s HAZUS loss estimation model isavailable to communities and can be used toprovide guidance in deciding on the advisabilityof adopting a mandatory upgrade ordinance.

17

CRITERIA FOR NEW BUILDING DESIGN

How should new buildings be designed?

Buildings must be designed to meet minimumcriteria specified in building codes. Modelbuilding codes are developed on a national basisby professional organizations representingengineers, architects, building officials and firemarshals, and are adopted, sometimes withmodification, by individual cities, counties andstates. Prior to the 1994 Northridge earthquake,the building codes contained prescriptiverequirements for the design and construction ofsteel moment-frame buildings. Theserequirements included specification of minimumpermissible strength and stiffness for resistingearthquake loading, and specific requirementsfor connections between beams and columns.The Northridge earthquake demonstrated thatsome of these prescriptive requirements werenot adequate. Following that discovery, theprescriptive requirements were removed frombuilding codes used in regions of highearthquake risk and replaced with a requirementthat designs include test data to show thatreliable performance could be achieved for eachnew building. These new requirements wereboth costly and difficult to enforce and resulted ina decrease in the number of steel moment-frame buildings constructed.

Studies conducted under the FEMA/SACprogram to reduce earthquake hazards inwelded moment-resisting steel frames confirmthat some of the design requirements containedin the building codes prior to the Northridgeearthquake were inadequate. In the time since,some of these inadequate requirements havebeen improved based on interim findings andrecommendations of the FEMA/SAC program.Now that the program is complete, FEMA 350presents a series of additional criteria for thedesign and construction of steel moment-framebuildings that should make performance of thesestructures in future earthquakes much morereliable. It is recommended that the buildingcodes adopt these new recommendations andthat, until this occurs, engineers and ownersvoluntarily adopt these criteria when developingnew buildings.

What types of changes to design andconstruction practice does FEMA 350recommend?

The FEMA 350 recommendations affect nearlyall phases of the design and constructionprocess. The recommendations address thetypes of steel used, the way in which columnsand beams are connected, the way the steel isfabricated, the type of welding that is performed,and the techniques that are used to assure thatthe construction work is performed properly.

In addition, FEMA 350 provides engineers with aseries of performance-based design criteria thatcan be used to design and construct buildings toresist earthquakes reliably while sustaining lessdamage than anticipated by building codes.

Prog

ram

to

Red

uce

the

Eart

hqua

ke H

azar

ds o

f

Ste

el M

omen

t Fra

me

Stru

ctur

es



FEMA 350 provides recommendations fordesign and construction of new steelmoment-frame buildings. Theserecommendations affect the materials ofconstruction, design and constructionprocedures, and methods of qualityassurance.

18

What are the recommended changes tothe types of structural steel that shouldbe used?

In the last few years, the steel industry in theUnited States has undergone rapid change withold rolling mills phased out and new mills, usingmore modern technologies, coming on line.Although the chemical composition and physicalproperties of steel have changed rapidly duringthis period, industry standard specifications anddesign practice largely neglected this. Workingwith the FEMA/SAC project, the AmericanInstitute of Steel Construction (AISC) developednew industry standard specifications forstructural steel material. These newspecifications provide better control of the criticalproperties that are important to earthquakeperformance. FEMA 350 recommends the useof these more modern steels and alsorecommends design procedures that properlyaccount for the high strength of modern steelmaterials.

Methods of steel production have undergonedramatic change in recent years and industrystandard design and material productionspecifications did not adequately reflect thematerial currently produced. FEMA 350updates the code requirements to assurespecification of proper materials and propertreatment in design.

If inadequately constructed, welded joints inmoment-frames can be weak links that failprematurely. FEMA 350 recommends carefulcontrol of the materials, workmanship andprocedures used to make these joints andverify their adequacy.

Are there any changes to weldingrequirements?

FEMA 350 and its companion document, FEMA353, present extensive new recommendationsfor welding of moment-resisting connections inframes designed for seismic applications. Thenew recommendations address the types ofmaterials that may be used for this work, thewelding processes and procedures that shouldbe followed, the environmental conditions underwhich welding should be performed, and thelevel of training and workmanship required ofwelders and inspectors engaged in this work. Inaddition, FEMA 353 provides detailedrecommendations for quality control, qualityassurance and inspection procedures thatshould be put into place to assure that thiscritical work is properly performed. These newrecommendations affect all segments of thedesign and construction process and requiredesigners, producers, fabricators, weldingelectrode manufacturers, welders andinspectors, among others, to adopt newpractices. These recommendations have beensubmitted to the American Welding Society forincorporation into the structural welding code.

19

What is different about the new designprocedures?

Prior to the Northridge earthquake, most steelmoment-frame designs used a standardconnection that was prescribed by the buildingcode. We know now that the configuration ofthese connections was problematic and resultedin unreliable connection performance. Followingthis discovery, the building codes were changedto require testing of each new connectiondesign. This was very costly and difficult toimplement. FEMA 350 presents a series of newconnection configurations that arerecommended as prequalified for use inmoment-frames conforming to certainlimitations. The use of these prequalifiedconnections will greatly simplify the designprocess and make the construction of newmoment-frame buildings more economical andmore reliable.

1

23

General:Applicable systems OMF, SMF

Hinge location distance sh dc/2Critical Beam Parameters:

Depth Up to W36 (OMF)Up to W30 (SMF)

Minimum Span OMF: 15 ft.SMF: 20 ft.

bf/2tf of flange 52Fy ; 35Fy recommended minimumFlange thickness Up to 1-1/4” (OMF)

Up to ¾” (SMF)Permissible Material Specifications A36, A572 Grade 50, A992

Critical Column Parameters:Depth Not Limited

Permissible Material Specifications A572, Grade 50; A913 Grade 50Minor Axis Connection Pre-

qualifiedOMF: YesSMF: No

Beam/Column Relations:PZ strength Section 3.3.3.2 for SMF; Cpr=1.2; Rv/Ru < 1.2 (recommended)

Column/beam bending strength Section 2.8.1; Cpr=1.2Connection Details

Web connection Section 3.5.3.2. Welding QC Level 2.Continuity plate thickness Section 3.3.3.1

Flange welds Section 3.5.3.1: Welding QC Level 1.Weld electrodes CVN 20 ft-lbs at -20oF and 40 ft-lbs at 70oF

Weld access holes Not Applicable

FEMA 350 provides prescriptive criteria forprequalified beam-to-column connectionscapable of reliable performance.

The Reduced Beam Section, or “dog bone”connection is one of 12 different types ofprequalified connections that engineers canspecify without project-specific testing.

How many different types ofconnections are prequalified?

FEMA 350 contains design criteria for twelvedifferent types of prequalified, welded and boltedbeam-to-column connections. Eachprequalification includes specification of thelimiting conditions under which the connectiondesign is valid, the materials that may be used,and the specific design and fabricationrequirements.

What is the basis for the newprequalified connections?

The new prequalified connections contained inFEMA 350 are based on extensive laboratoryand analytical investigations including more than120 full-scale tests of beam-to-columnconnection assemblies and numerous analyticalstudies of the behavior of different connectiontypes. Connections were prequalified only aftertheir behavior was understood, analytical modelswere developed that could predict this behaviorand laboratory testing demonstrated that theconnections would behave reliably.

20

What is the best type of connection touse?

Each of the prequalified connections offerscertain advantages with regard to designconsiderations, fabrication and erectioncomplexity, construction cost, and structuralperformance capability. No one connection typewill be most appropriate for all applications. It islikely that individual engineers and fabricatorswill develop preferences for the use of specifictypes of connections, and that certainconnections will see widespread use in someparts of the country but not others.

Do the prequalified connections coverall possible design cases?

The prequalifed connections should beapplicable to many common design conditions.However, they are not universally applicable toall structures and, in particular, are limited inapplicability with regard to the size, types andorientation of framing members with which theycan be used. If a design requires the use oftypes or sizes of framing that are not included inthe ranges for a prequalified connection, FEMA350 recommends that supplemental testing ofthe connection be performed to demonstrate thatit will be capable of performing adequately.

Is it possible to use types ofconnections other than those that areprequalified?

FEMA 350 contains information on several typesof proprietary connections that are notprequalified and nothing in FEMA 350 preventsengineers from developing or using other typesof connection designs. However, FEMA 350does state that, when other types of connectionsare used, a testing program should beconducted to demonstrate that theseconnections can perform adequately. FEMA 350also presents information on the types of testingthat should be conducted and how to determineif connection performance is acceptable.

Will designs employing these newrecommendations cost more?

The cost of a steel frame building is generallydependent on the amount of labor required tofabricate and erect the steel and the totalnumber of tons of steel in the building frame.The new design recommendations bothformalize and simplify design procedures thatgenerally have been in use by engineers sincethe 1994 Northridge earthquake. They do notresult in an increase in steel tonnage orsignificantly greater labor for fabrication anderection. However, more extensive constructionquality assurance measures are recommendedand these will result in some additionalconstruction cost. It is anticipated that thisadditional cost will amount to less than 1% of thetotal construction cost for typical buildings.

Will buildings designed to the newrecommendations be earthquake proof?

It is theoretically possible to design and constructbuildings that are strong enough to resist severeearthquakes without damage, but it would not beeconomical to do so and we could not afford toconstruct many such buildings. The objective ofmost building codes is to design buildings suchthat they might be damaged by severeearthquakes but not collapse and endangeroccupants in any earthquake they are likely toexperience. The FEMA 350 recommendationsadopt this same design philosophy. It isanticipated that there would be a very low risk oflife threatening damage in buildings designedand constructed in accordance with the FEMA350 recommendations. However, they mayexperience damage that will require repair,including permanent bending and yielding of theframing elements and possible permanent lateraldrift of the structure. Although it is possible thatsome connections designed using the newprocedure may fracture, it is anticipated that thiswill not be widespread.

21

Will the new recommendations beincluded in the building codes?

The seismic provisions of current building codesare largely based on the NEHRP RecommendedProvisions for Seismic Regulations of Buildingsand Other Structures, supplemented by standardspecifications developed by industryassociations, including the American Institute ofSteel Construction (AISC) and the AmericanWelding Society (AWS). Many of the designrecommendations contained in FEMA 350 havealready been incorporated into the standarddesign specifications developed by AISC and aredirectly referenced by the 2000 InternationalBuilding Code. The remainingrecommendations are being proposed forincorporation into later editions of the AISC andAWS specifications. This material is also beingincluded in the NEHRP RecommendedProvisions for Seismic Regulations of NewBuildings and Other Structures. Some of theearlier material has already been included in the1997 edition (FEMA 302/303) and the remainderof the material will be incorporated into the new2000 edition (FEMA 368/369), due to bereleased in spring 2001. It is anticipated thatmany jurisdictions around the United States willadopt building codes based on these criteria asthe basis for building regulation in theircommunities.

Is it possible to design to the newrecommendations before the newbuilding codes are adopted?

Many of the new design recommendations arecompatible with existing building coderegulations that are already in force around theUnited States. It should be possible forengineers to utilize the new recommendations,on a voluntary basis, as a supplement to theexisting building code requirements. However,the local building official is the ultimate authorityas to the acceptability of this practice. Engineersshould verify that the building official will acceptthe new documents prior to using them to designbuildings.

Is it possible to design for betterperformance?

As an option, FEMA 350 includes a methodologywhich engineers can use to design for superiorperformance relative to that anticipated by thebuilding code. This approach is similar to theprocedures contained in FEMA 351 for theevaluation and upgrade of existing buildings. Inthese procedures, a decision must be made asto what level of performance is desired for aspecific level of earthquake motion. As anexample, one of the available performancelevels, termed Immediate Occupancy, results insuch slight damage that the building should beavailable for occupancy immediately followingthe earthquake. The performance-basedprocedures of FEMA 350 can be used to designa building such that there is a high probability thebuilding will provide Immediate Occupancyperformance for any level of earthquake intensitythat is desired. As a minimum, however,buildings should be designed to satisfy theprescriptive criteria of the applicable buildingcode, which are intended to protect life safety.

22

CONSTRUCTION QUALITY CONTROL AND ASSURANCE

What is construction quality control?

Construction quality control includes that set ofactions taken by the contractor to ensure thatconstruction conforms to the specified materialand workmanship standards, the requirementsof the design drawings and the applicablebuilding code. Construction quality controlincludes hiring workers and subcontractors thathave the necessary training and experience toperform the construction properly; making surethat these workers understand the projectrequirements and their responsibility to executethem; and performing routine inspections andtests to confirm that the work is properlyperformed. Some contractors may retainindependent inspection and testing agencies toassist them with their quality control functions.

What is construction quality assurance?

Construction quality assurance is that set ofactions, including inspections, observations andtests, that are performed on the owner’s behalfto ensure that the contractor is conforming to thedesign and building code requirements. Inessence, construction quality assurancerepresents a second line of defense andsupplements the contractor’s own quality controlprogram. Building codes specify minimum levelsof quality assurance for different types ofconstruction. If the contractor on a project doesnot perform adequate quality control it may beappropriate to provide more quality assurancethan required by the applicable building code.Quality assurance tasks are typically performedby design professionals and special inspectionand testing agencies specifically retained by theowner for this purpose. It is recommended thatthe engineer assist the owner in determining thelevel of quality assurance appropriate to aspecific project, and also that the engineer beretained by the owner to actively monitor andparticipate in the quality assurance process.

Why is construction quality control andquality assurance important?

Investigations performed after every earthquakeindicate that much of the damage that occurs isa result of structures not being constructed inaccordance with the applicable building code orthe designer’s intent. This problem has affectednearly every type of building construction,including wood frame, masonry, concrete andsteel buildings. Construction errors andconstruction work that is improperly performedcreate weak links where damage in structurescan initiate. Earthquakes can place extremeloading on structures and, if structures containimproper construction, damage is likely to occurwhere that poor construction occurs.

Was inadequate construction quality asignificant factor in the damagesustained by steel buildings in theNorthridge earthquake?

One of the contributors to the damage sustainedby steel moment-frame buildings in theNorthridge earthquake was construction that didnot conform to the applicable standards. Inparticular, investigations conducted after theearthquake revealed that critical welds of beamsto columns were not made in accordance withthe building code requirements. A number ofdefects were commonly found in the constructionincluding: welds that had large slag inclusionsand lack of fusion (bonding) with the steelcolumns, welds that were placed too quickly andwith too much heat input into the joint; andwelding aids including backing and weld tabsthat were improperly installed. Theseconstruction defects resulted in welded jointsthat had lower strength and toughness thanshould have been provided, resulting in apropensity for damage.

23

Who is responsible for constructionquality control and assurance?

Each of the participants in building construction,including the design engineer, the contractor, thebuilding official, and special inspectors, plays acritical role in assuring that construction meetsthe appropriate standards. The engineer mustspecify the applicable standards and the qualityassurance measures that are to be used. Thecontractor must perform the work in the requiredmanner and perform inspections to verify thatthis occurs. Building codes require that theowner retain a special inspection agency toperform detailed inspections and assure that thecontractor is executing the work properly. Theresponsible building official typically monitors theentire process and makes sure that each of theparties fulfills their individual responsibilities.

Prog

ram

to

Red

uce

the

Eart

hqua

ke H

azar

ds o

f

Ste

el M

omen

t Fra

me

Stru

ctur

es


Recommended Specificationsand Quality Assurance Guidelines for Steel Moment-Frame Constructionfor Seismic Applications

FEMA 353 provides recommendedspecifications for fabrication, erection, andquality assurance of steel moment-framestructures designed for seismic applications.

Where can one find recommendationson appropriate quality control andquality assurance procedures?

FEMA 353 provides detailed recommendationsfor procedures that should be followed to assurethat steel moment-frame construction complieswith the applicable standards. It includesinformation that is useful to engineers, buildingofficials, contractors and inspectors. Thisinformation is presented in the form ofspecifications that can be included in the projectspecifications developed by engineers forspecific projects. It also includes commentarythat explains the basis for the recommendationsand methods that can be used to implementthem.

Are the new quality recommendationssignificantly different than thoserequired in the past?

Many of the recommendations contained inFEMA 353 are a restatement and clarification ofrequirements already contained in building codesand in the standard AISC and AWSspecifications. There are also some importantnew recommendations. These include newrequirements intended to assure that weld fillermetals and welding procedures are capable ofproviding welded joints of adequate strength andtoughness. In addition, comprehensiverecommendations are provided as to the extentof testing and inspection that should beperformed on different welded joints. In part,these new requirements are based on findingsthat the inspection methods traditionally used inthe past to assure weld quality are incapable ofreliably detecting nonconforming construction. Itis anticipated that many of these newrequirements will be incorporated into the AWSstandards in the future.

24

PREPARING FOR THE NEXT EARTHQUAKE

What should communities do before thenext disaster occurs?

Before the next disaster strikes, communitiesshould conduct a thorough examination of theirvulnerability to natural hazards and the risks theymay present to their citizens. In addition to apotential earthquake threat, communities may bevulnerable to other significant hazards, such asflooding, high winds, hurricanes, tornadoes,tsunami, etc. While this publication addressesthe potential earthquake risk of steel moment-frame buildings, communities may have moresignificant risks from other more hazardoustypes of buildings, such as unreinforcedmasonry, non-ductile concrete frame or tilt-upconcrete buildings. Communities should carefullyconsider all of these potential risks and how theymay affect the different types of constructionpresent.

Regardless of the risk posed by existingconstruction, before the next disaster occurscommunities should adopt reliable buildingcodes and building regulation practices that willensure that new buildings are adequatelydesigned and constructed to resist the futureearthquakes and other disasters that willinevitably occur. Building codes that incorporatethe latest edition of the NEHRP RecommendedProvisions for Seismic Regulation for Buildingsand Other Structures are stronglyrecommended.

Communities may wish to encourage buildingowners to upgrade their existing hazardousbuildings to minimize potential damage,economic and life loss. FEMA 351 can be usedas a technical basis for both voluntary andmandatory upgrade programs. In addition,communities should put emergency responsesystems into place. Building departments shouldtrain their personnel to conduct buildinginspections. In large cities, building departmentswill quickly become overwhelmed by thisresponsibility. Before the next earthquake, thebuilding department should make arrangementsfor assistance from outside the affected area.Some states have agencies that will facilitatethis. Communities should also consider adoptingordinances to govern the post-earthquakebuilding inspection and repair process.Experience has shown that some building

owners will not act responsibly to inspect andrepair buildings, unless required by law to do so.FEMA 352 can be used as a basis fordeveloping post-earthquake inspection andrepair ordinances.

Is help available?

FEMA has developed a number of tools thatcommunities can use to identify their exposure tonatural disasters, including both earthquake andflood hazard maps. FEMA has also developedstandardized, GIS-based computer software thatcan help a community to assess the risk thatthese hazards present. This software package,called HazardsUS, or HAZUS, presentlyaddresses earthquake risk, however modulesare currently under development that will alsoaddress the risk from floods and high winds.FEMA has also published a series of guidancedocuments for both technical and non-technicalaudiences to assist in addressing specifichazard-related issues. All of these aids areavailable, without charge, from FEMA.

Once the hazard and risk are known, FEMA hasa community-based initiative called ProjectImpact to help encourage the implementation ofpre-disaster prevention, or mitigation, activities.This initiative, which may include a one-timeseed grant, encourages the formation ofcommunity-based partnerships between publicand private stakeholders. For more informationon this and other programs, visit FEMA’s websiteat www.fema.gov.

Project Impact assists communities to formpublic and private partnerships to reduce thepotential for natural disaster losses.

25

THE FEMA/SAC PROJECT AND DISSEMINATING ITS RESULTS

Why did FEMA elect to undertake suchan effort?

FEMA, as part of its role in the NationalEarthquake Hazards Reduction Program(NEHRP), is charged with reducing the ever-increasing cost of damage in earthquakes.Preventing losses before they happen, ormitigation, is the only truly effective way ofreducing this cost. In this light, the role of thisnation's building codes and standards in mitigatingearthquake losses is critical, and FEMA iscommitted to working with this nation's seismiccodes and standards to keep them among thebest in the world. Because the damage thatresulted from the Northridge earthquake calledinto question the design assumptions and buildingcode requirements associated with steel moment-frame construction and because of the unknownlife safety hazard of the damaged buildings, it wascrucial that adequate repair and retrofittingprocedures be quickly identified. This wasparticularly critical for FEMA, because many of thedamaged steel buildings were publicly owned andtherefore the cost of damage repair was eligiblefor funding under the public assistance provisionsof the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief andEmergency Assistance Act. To fully respond tothis need, development of reliable and cost-effective methods for use in the various buildingcodes and standards that address the design ofnew construction and the repair and/or upgradingof existing steel moment-frame buildings wasnecessary.

The solution of this problem required acoordinated, problem-focused program ofresearch, investigation and professionaldevelopment with the goal of developing andvalidating reliable and cost-effective seismic-resistant design procedures for steel moment-frame structures. This work involvedconsideration of many complex technical,professional and economic issues includingmetallurgy, welding, fracture mechanics,connection behavior, system performance, andpractices related to design, fabrication, erectionand inspection.

How were related policy issuesaddressed by the FEMA/SAC project?

As part of the project, an expert panel withrepresentation from the financial, legal,commercial real estate, construction, andbuilding regulation communities was formed toreview social, economic, legal and politicalissues related to the technicalrecommendations. This panel was charged withevaluating the potential impact of therecommended design and construction criteriaon various stakeholder groups, identifyingpotential barriers to effective implementation ofthe recommendations and advising the projectteam on potential ways of making the guidelinesmore useful and effective. The panel held aworkshop in October 1997 that brought togetherrepresentatives of these constituencies, andtheir recommendations were considered duringthe development of technical recommendationsand in the preparation of this publication.

Why did it take so long to develop thenecessary information?

The damage experienced by steel moment-frame structures in the Northridge earthquakecalled to question the entire portions of buildingcodes that addressed this type of construction,and which had been developed over a period ofmore than 20 years. This project basically hadto start from scratch and either revalidate all ofthe existing criteria, or when this criteria wasfound to be inadequate, develop new designcriteria and construction standards that could berelied upon. This involved a complete re-evaluation of the properties of structural steelsand welding materials, the assumptions used indesigning and evaluating different types ofmoment-connections, and the methods used ininspecting and evaluating these connections andtheir behavior. In the process, all of this materialhad to be developed and presented in a rigorousand scientifically defensible manner so that itwould be recognized as reliable and used by thebuilding design, construction and regulatorycommunities. This project accomplished in sixyears what originally evolved over 20 years.

26

How will this information be put untopractice?

The new FEMA guidance documents are nowbeing widely disseminated to the structuralengineering and building regulationcommunities. Three of these publicationsprovide recommended criteria for design of morereliable new construction (FEMA 350), upgradingexisting structures to minimize the potential forfuture damage (FEMA 351), and evaluating andrepairing buildings after an earthquake (FEMA352). The fourth provides technicalspecifications and quality assurance guidelines(FEMA 353). Much of the information containedin these publications, especially for newconstruction, is being incorporated into both theNEHRP Recommended Provisions for SeismicRegulation of Buildings and Other Structures andthe latest standard design specificationpublished by AISC. Together, these publicationsserve as the consensus design standard forsteel structures nationwide. This standard isroutinely adopted by reference into the modelbuilding codes where it is in turn used as part ofstate and/or local building codes. AISC has alsopublished a design guide, developed jointly withNIST, for upgrade of existing structures, andwhich compliments the recommendationscontained in FEMA 351.

How can one obtain additionalinformation?

The four FEMA publications described abovecan be ordered free of charge by calling 1-800-480-2520. In addition, a series of state-of-the-artreports have been developed which summarizethe current state of knowledge that forms thetechnical basis for the recommended criteriapublications. These reports are available fromFEMA in CD-ROM format (FEMA 355).Individual reports on the technical investigationsperformed in support of the FEMA/SAC projectare available as well. These technical reportsand FEMA 355 may be purchased in hard copyformat from the SAC Joint Venture. The SACJoint Venture will also continue to maintain apublicly accessible site on the World Wide Webat www.sacsteel.org. Future information andtraining opportunities will be available from theAmerican Institute of Steel Construction (AISC)and other organizations. Consult AISC’s WorldWide Web site at www.aisc.org for additionalinformation.

27

INDEX

American Institute of Steel Construction (AISC), 2,18, 21, 23, 26

American Welding Society (AWS), 21, 23building code, 1, 15, 17, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 25collapse, 4, 7, 8, 14, 20connection, 3, 5, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 15, 19, 20, 25construction, 20cost, 2, 5, 9, 13, 14, 15, 16, 19, 20, 25crack, cracks, cracking 4, 5, 6damage, i, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, 10, 12, 14, 15, 16, 17, 20,

21, 22, 25, 26design, 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 11, 12, 13, 14, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21,

23, 25, 26FEMA 350 Recommended Seismic Design Criteria

for New Moment Resisting Steel Frame Buildings,2, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 26

FEMA 351 Recommended Seismic Evaluation andUpgrade Criteria for Existing Welded Steel FrameBuildings, 2, 11, 12, 14, 15, 16, 21, 26

FEMA 352 Recommended Post EarthquakeEvaluation and Repair Criteria for Welded SteelMoment Frame Buildings, 2, 8, 9, 10, 24, 26

FEMA 353 Recommended Specifications and QualityAssurance Guidelines for Steel Moment FrameConstruction for Seismic Applications, 2, 18, 23,26

fracture, 1, 4, 10, 20, 25inspection, 5, 8, 9, 23, 24, 25Kobe, 1, 6Loma Prieta Earthquake, 1, 6materials, 19National Institute of Standards and Technology

(NIST), 2, 26National Science Foundation (NSF), 2NEHRP Recommended Provisions for Seismic

Regulation of Buildings and Other Structures(FEMA 302/303), 12, 21, 25

Northridge earthquake, i, 3, 4, 6, 8, 9, 15, 17, 19,20, 22, 25

quality assurance, 17, 20, 22, 23, 26quality control, 22, 23repair, 1, 2, 9, 10, 15, 20, 24, 25safety, 7, 8, 9, 14, 15upgrade, 2, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 21welding, 4, 11, 18, 22, 23welded joint, 1, 4

The

term

“m

itiga

tion”

desc

ribe

s ac

tions

w

hich

can

hel

p re

duce

or

elim

inat

e yo

ur lo

ng-te

rm r

isk

from

nat

ural

di

sast

ers.

With

miti

gatio

n, y

ou c

an

avoi

d lo

sses

and

redu

ce y

our r

isk

of

beco

min

g a

disa

ster

vic

tim.

Ther

e ar

e m

any

low

-cos

tmiti

gatio

nm

easu

res

you

can

take

to p

rote

ct

your

self,

you

r hom

e, o

r you

r bus

ines

s fr

om lo

sses

. Fo

r exa

mpl

e: FL

OO

DIN

G

■

Mov

e va

luab

les

and

appl

ianc

es o

ut

of t

he b

asem

ent

of y

our h

ome

or b

usin

ess

if it

is

pron

e to

floo

ding

. Th

is w

ill in

crea

se th

e ch

ance

th

at y

our b

elon

ging

s w

ill re

mai

n dr

y w

hen

a flo

od o

ccur

s.

■

Hav

e th

e m

ain

brea

ker

or f

use

box

and

the

utili

ty m

eter

s el

evat

ed a

bove

the

antic

ipat

ed

flood

leve

l in

your

hom

e or

bus

ines

s, s

o th

at

flood

wat

er w

on’t

dam

age

your

util

ities

.

■

Buy

flood

insu

ranc

e to

cov

er th

e va

lue

of y

our

hom

e an

d its

con

tent

s. N

ot o

nly

will

it g

ive

you

grea

ter

peac

e of

min

d, b

ut it

will

als

o gr

eatly

spe

ed y

our r

ecov

ery

if a

flood

occ

urs.

To le

arn

mor

e ab

out f

lood

insu

ranc

e, c

onta

ct

your

insu

ranc

e co

mpa

ny o

r ag

ent,

or c

all

1-80

0-42

7-46

61.

EART

HQ

UAKES

■ Bo

lt o

r st

rap

cupb

oard

s an

d bo

okca

ses

to t

he

wal

l,an

d ke

ep h

eavy

obj

ects

on

the

low

ersh

elve

s.Th

is w

ill re

duce

bot

h da

mag

es a

nd th

e po

ssib

ility

of i

njur

y to

thos

e in

you

r hom

e or

bu

sine

ss.

■

Stra

p yo

ur w

ater

hea

ter

to a

nea

rby

wal

l usi

ng

band

s of

per

fora

ted

stee

l (co

mm

only

kno

wn

as

“plu

mbe

r’s ta

pe”)

. If

a g

as w

ater

hea

ter f

alls

du

ring

an

eart

hqua

ke, i

t cou

ld b

reak

the

gas

line

and

star

t a fi

re.

■

Inst

all b

olts

to

conn

ect

your

hom

e to

its

foun

dati

on.

Anch

or b

olts

cos

t as

little

as

$2 a

pi

ece,

but

can

pre

vent

thou

sand

s of

dol

lars

of

dam

age.

Hav

e th

em in

stal

led

ever

y si

x fe

et

arou

nd th

e pe

rim

eter

of y

our h

ome.

HAZA

RDMI

TIGAT

ION W

ORKS

, AN

D IT C

AN SA

VE YO

U MON

EY.IT

HELPS

PROT

ECT Y

OUR F

AMILY,

YOUR

BU

SINESS

AND Y

OUR P

ROPE

RTY

FROM

THE E

FFECT

S OF

NATU

RAL

DISAS

TERS.

HURR

ICAN

ES A

ND

TORN

ADO

ES

■

Hav

e hu

rric

ane

stra

ps in

stal

led

in y

our

hom

e or

bu

sine

ssto

bet

ter

secu

re th

e ro

of to

the

wal

ls

and

foun

datio

n. T

his

will

red

uce

the

risk

of

losi

ng y

our

roof

to h

igh

win

ds.

■

Inst

all a

nd m

aint

ain

stor

m s

hutt

ers

to p

rote

ct

all e

xpos

ed w

indo

ws

and

glas

s su

rfac

es, a

nd

use

them

whe

n se

vere

wea

ther

thre

aten

s.Be

side

s pr

otec

ting

agai

nst w

ind,

shu

tters

als

o pr

even

t dam

age

from

flyi

ng d

ebri

s.

■

Hav

e yo

ur h

ome

insp

ecte

d by

a b

uild

ing

prof

essi

onal

to e

nsur

e th

at r

oof a

nd o

ther

bu

ildin

g co

mpo

nent

s ar

e ca

pabl

e of

w

ithst

andi

ng w

ind

effe

cts.

WIL

DFI

RES

■ M

ove

shru

bs a

nd o

ther

land

scap

ing

away

fro

m

the

side

s of

you

r ho

me

or d

eck.

All

too

ofte

n,

hom

esbu

rnw

hen

plan

tings

arou

ndth

emca

tch

fire.

■

Inst

all t

ile o

r fla

me-

reta

rdan

t sh

ingl

es o

n yo

ur

roof

,ins

tead

of w

ood

shak

es o

r sta

ndar

d sh

ingl

es.

This

will

redu

ce th

e ch

ance

that

ai

rbor

ne b

urni

ng d

ebri

s w

ill e

nd u

p de

stro

ying

yo

ur h

ome.

■

Cle

ar d

ead

brus

h an

d gr

ass

from

you

r pr

oper

ty

so th

at it

will

not

pro

vide

fuel

for a

spr

eadi

ng

fire.

MA

KE

SURE

TO

M

ITIG

ATE

PRO

PERL

Y —

TH

E FI

RST

TIM

E!

Mos

t com

mun

ities

hav

e bu

ildin

g co

des

and

ordi

nanc

es w

hich

gui

de

cons

truc

tion

prac

tices

. M

any

of

thes

e ar

e de

sign

ed to

red

uce

your

ri

sk fr

om a

ll ty

pes

of h

azar

ds,

incl

udin

g flo

ods,

ear

thqu

akes

, hig

h w

inds

, and

wild

fires

.

If y

ou h

ave

any

ques

tions

abo

ut lo

cal

code

s or

ord

inan

ces,

and

how

they

m

ay im

pact

miti

gatio

n ef

fort

s in

you

r ho

me

or b

usin

ess,

con

tact

a

prof

essi

onal

or y

our b

uild

ing

offic

ial.

Eith

er s

houl

d be

abl

e to

pro

vide

you

w

ith th

e as

sist

ance

you

nee

d to

m

itiga

te r

ight

the

first

tim

e.

Mit

igat

ion

Beg

ins

Wit

h Yo

u —

Lea

rn t

o B

uild

Str

onge

r,Sa

fer,

Sm

arte

r!

To le

arn

mor

e ab

out h

azar

d m

itiga

tion

mea

sure

s th

at

you

can

take

to re

duce

you

r ris

k fr

om d

isas

ters

,vi

sit F

EMA’

s In

tern

et s

ite (

ww

w.fe

ma.

gov)

, or

call

1-80

0-48

0-25

20 to

hav

e a

list o

f ava

ilabl

e m

itiga

tion

publ

icat

ions

mai

led

to y

our

hom

e or

off

ice.

You

can

also

con

tact

the

FEM

A Re

gion

al O

ffice

nea

rest

yo

u:

FEM

A Re

gion

I (s

ervi

ng C

T, N

H, M

E, M

A, R

I, VT

) J.W

. McC

orm

ack

Post

Offi

ce

Cou

rtho

use

Bldg

., Rm

. 442

Bo

ston

, MA

0210

9te

l:(6

17)

223-

9540

FEM

A Re

gion

II (

serv

ing

NJ,

NY,

PR,

VI)

26

Fed

eral

Pla

za, R

m. 1

337

New

Yor

k, N

Y 10

278

tel:

(212

) 22

5-72

09

FEM

A Re

gion

III

(ser

ving

DC

, DE,

MD

, PA,

VA,

WV)

Li

bert

y Sq

uare

Bld

g., 2

nd F

loor

10

5 S.

Sev

enth

St.

Phila

delp

hia,

PA

1910

6te

l:(2

15) 9

31-5

608

FEM

A Re

gion

IV (

serv

ing

AL, F

L, G

A, K

Y, M

S, N

C, S

C, T

N)

Koge

r Cen

ter -

Rut

gers

Bld

g.

3003

Cha

mbl

ee-T

ucke

r Roa

d A

tlant

a, G

A 30

341

tel:

(770

) 22

0-52

00

FEM

A Re

gion

V (

serv

ing

IL, I

N, O

H, M

N, W

I)

175

W. J

acks

on B

lvd.

, 4th

Flo

or

Chi

cago

, IL

6060

4te

l:(3

12) 4

09-5

518

FEM

A Re

gion

VI

(ser

ving

AR,

LA,

NM

, OK,

TX)

Fe

dera

l Reg

iona

l Cen

ter

800

N. L

oop

Den

ton,

TX

7620

1te

l:(8

17)

898-

5127

FEM

A Re

gion

VII

(se

rvin

g IA

, KS,

MO

, NE)

23

23 G

rand

Blv

d., S

te. 9

00

Kans

as C

ity, M

O 6

4108

tel:

(816

) 28

3-70

60

FEM

A Re

gion

VII

I (s

ervi

ng C

O, M

T, N

D, S

D, U

T, W

Y)

Den

ver F

eder

al C

ente

r, Bl

dg. 7

10

Box

2526

7 D

enve

r, C

O 8

0225

tel:

(303

) 23

5-48

30

FEM

A Re

gion

IX (

serv

ing

AZ, C

A, H

I, N

V)

Build

ing

105,

the

Pres

idio

Sa

n Fr

anci

sco,

CA

9412

9te

l:(4

15)

923-

7175

FEM

A Re

gion

X(s

ervi

ng A

K, I

D, O

R, W

A)

Fede

ral R

egio

nal C

ente

r 13

0 22

8th

St.,

SW

Both

ell,

WA

9802

1te

l:(2

06)

481-

8800

Is y

our f

amily

,hom

e,or

busi

ness

prot

ecte

d fro

m

natu

ral d

isas

ters

?

They

can

be.

RED

UCE

YO

UR

RIS

K

FRO

M

N AT

URA

L D

ISAS

TERS

Fed

eral

Em

erge

ncy

M

anag

emen

t A

gen

cy

Reac

h us

on

the

Inte

rnet

at

htt

p:/

/ww

w.f

ema.

gov

FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY SEISMIC SAFETY OF BUILDINGS

Sources of information for design professionals and other decision makers in earthquake hazard mitigation

EXISTING BUILDINGS

Rapid Visual Screening of Buildings for Potential Seismic Hazards: A Handbook (FEMA-I 54, 1988, 185 pages) and Rapid Visual Screening of Buildings for Potential Seismic Hazards: Supporting Documentation (FEMA-I 55,1988,137 pages). Prepared by the Applied Technology Council, Red-wood City, CA (ATC-21 and ATC-21 -1).

The Handbook presents a method for quickly identifying build-ings posing risk of death, injury, or severe curtailment in use following an earthquake. The methodology, “Rapid Screening Procedure (RSP),” can be used by trained personnel to identify potentially hazardous buildings on the basis of a 15 to 30 minute exterior inspection, using a data collection form included in the Handbook. Twelve basic structural categories are inspected, leading to a numerical “structural score” based on visual in-spection. Building inspectors are the most likely group to imple-ment an RSP, although this report is also intended for building officials, engineers, architects, building owners, emergency man-agers and interested citizens. The Supporting Documenta-tion reviews the literature and existing procedures for rapid vi-sual screening.

NEHRP Handbook for the Seismic Evaluation of Existing Buildings (FEMA-178, 1992, 227 pages). Prepared by the Building Seismic Safety Council, Washington, D.C.

The Handbook presents a nationally applicable method for engineers to identify buildings or building components that present unacceptable risks in case of an earthquake. Four structural subsystems in which deficits may exist are identi-fied: vertical elements resisting horizontal loads; horizontal el-ements resisting lateral loads; foundations; and connections between structural elements or subsystems. Fifteen struc-tural categories are defined for the evaluation of buildings by engineers. The Handbook is formulated to be compatible with NEHRP Handbook of Techniques for the Seismic Reha-bilitation of Existing Buildings (FEMA-172/1992).

NEHRP Handbook of Techniques for the Seismic Re-habilitation of Existing Buildings (FEMA-172, 1992,197 pages). Prepared by the Building Seismic Safety Council, Washington, DC.

This handbook presents techniques for solving a variety of seismic rehabilitation problems. intended for engineers con-cerned with seismic rehabilitation of existing buildings, the handbook identifies and describes seismic rehabilitation techniques for a broad spectrum of building types and build-ing components (both structural and nonstructural). Most techniques are illustrated with sketches, and the relative merits of the techniques are discussed. Designed to be compatible with the NEHRP Handbook for the Seismic Evaluation of Existing Buildings (FEMA-178/1992), this publication is based on a prelimary version prepared by URS/John A. Blume and Associates, Technique for Seismically Rehabilitating Existing Buildings (FEMA-172/1989).

Typical Costs for Seismic Rehabilitation of Existing Buildings: Volume 1: Summary, Second Edition (FEMA-156, 1994, approx. 70 pages); Volume 2: Supporting Documentation, Second Edition (FEMA-1 57, 1995,approx. 102 pages). Prepared by the Hart Consult-ant Group, Inc. Santa Monica, CA. [FEMA-156, 1994 ANDFEMA-157, 1995 SUPERSEDE FEMA-156, 1988 AND FEMA-157. 1988].

Typical Costa for Seismic Rehabilitation of Existing Buildings: Volume I: Summary second Editionprovidesa methodology that enables users to estimate the costs of seismic rehabilitation projects at various locations in the United States. This greatly improved edition is based on a sample of almost 2100 projects. The data were collected by use of a standard protocol, given a stringent quality control verification and a reliability rating, and then entered into a database that is available to practitioners. A sophisticated statistical methodology applied to this database yields costs estimates of increasing quality and reliability as more and more detailed information on the building inventory is used in the estimation process. Guidance is also provided to cal-culate a range of uncertainty associated with this process. The Supporting Documentation contains an in-depth dis-cussion of the approaches and methodology that were used in developing the second edition.

Benefit-Cost Model for the Seismic Rehabilitation of Haz-ardous Buildings. Volume 1: A User’s Manual (FEMA-227, 1992, approx. 68 pages); Volume 2: Supporting Documen-tation (FEMA-228, 1992, approx. 62 pages); and ComputerSoftware for Benefit-Cost Model for the Seismic Reha-bilifation of Hazardous Buildings. Prepared by VSP Asso-ciates, Inc., Sacramento, CA.

The two benefit-cost models presented in this report are de-signed to help evaluate the economic benefits and costs of seismic rehabilitation of existing hazardous buildings. The single class model analyzes groups of buildings with a single structural type, a single use, and a single set of economic as-sumptions. The multi-class model analyzes groups of build-ings that may have several structural types and uses. The

User's manual presents background information on the de-velopment of the benefit-cost model and an introduction to the use of benefit/cost analysis in decision making. It reviews the economic assumptions of benefit-cost models, with and with-out including the value of life. The User’s Manual guides the user through the model by presenting synopses of data entries required, example model results, and supporting information. Seven applications of the models are presented: five of the single-class model; two of the multi-class model.

Supporting Documentation complements the User’s Manual by providing four appendices that help the user understand how the benefit-cost models were constructed. The appendi-ces include: 1 ) a review of relevant literature; 2) a section on estimating costs for seismic rehabilitation; 3) a compilation of tables for the Seattle building inventory; and 4) some insights into the building rehabilitation of the nine cities visited during this project.

Computer Software to run the benefit/cost models is also avail-able. The programs are on 3½” diskettes and can be used on IBM compatible personal computers.

Seismic Rehabilitation of Federal Buildings: A Benefit/ Cost Model. Volume 1: A User’s Manual (FEMA 255,1994, approx. 158 pages); Volume 2: Supporting Documentation (FEMA-256, 1994, approx. 71 pages) and Computer Soft-ware for the Seismic Rehabilitation of Federal Buildings. Prepared by VSP Associates, Inc., Sacramento, CA.

This User’s Manuel and accompanying software present a second generation cost-benefit model for the seismic reha-bilitation of federal and other government buildings. Intended for facility managers, design professionals, and others in-volved in decision making, the cost/benefit methodology pro-vides estimates of the benefits (avoided damages, avoided losses, and avoided casualties) of seismic rehabilitation, as well as estimates of the costs necessary to implement the rehabilitation. The methodology also generates detailed sce-nario estimates of damages, losses, and casualties. The Manual describes the computer hardware and software re-quired to run the program. It also explains how to install the program, how to use Quattro Pro for Windows, and how to enter necessary data. A tutorial provides a fully worked ex-ample. Benefit/Cost analyses of eight federal buildings are included. The Supporting Documentation contains back-ground information for theUser’s Manual including informa-tion on valuing public sector services, discount rates and mul-tipliers, the dollar value of human life, and technical issues that affect benefit/cost analysis, such as seismic risk assess-ment and sensitivity analysis.

Computer Software to run the benefit/cost model is avail-able on 3 1/2” diskettes and can be used on IBM compatible personal computers with at least 386 CPU. The computer must also have Windows and Quattro Pro.

Establishing Programs and Priorities for the Seismic Re-habilitation of Buildings: handbook(FEMA-174,1989,122pages) and Establishing Programs and Priorities for the Seismic Rehabilitation of Buildings: Supporting Report (FEMA-173, 1989, 190 pages). Prepared by Building Sys-tems Development, Inc. with integrated Design Services and Claire B. Rubin.

These two volumes provide the information needed to develop a seismic rehabilitation? program, with particular reference estab-lishing priorities. The Handbook is intended to assist local juris-dictions in making informed decisions on rehabilitating seismically hazardous existing buildings by providing nationally applicable guidelines. It discusses the pertinent issues that merit consider-ation, both technical and societal, and suggests a procedure whereby these issues can be resolved. The Supporting Report includes additional information and commentary directly related to sections in the Handbook supporting documentation, anno-tated bibliographies, and reproductions of selected laws and ordi-nances that are presented in summary form in the Handbook.

Financial Incentives for Seismic Rehabilitation of Hazard-ous Buildings - An Agenda for Action. Volume 1: Find-ings, Conclusions, and Recommendations (FEMA-198,1990,104 pages); Volume 2: State and Local Case Studies and Recommendations (FEMA-199, 1990, 130 pages); and Volume 3: Applications Workshops Report (FEMA-216,1990, about 200 pages). Prepared by Building Technology, Inc., Silver Spring, MD.

The intent of these documents is to identify and describe the existing and potential regulatory and financial mechanisms and incentives for lessening the risks posed by existing buildings in an earthquake. Volume 1 includes a discussion of the meth-odology used for these documents, background information on financial incentives, as well as findings, conclusions and recommendations for use by decision makers at local, state and national levels. Volume 2 includes detailed descriptions of the twenty case studies that were examined as part of this project. Volume 3 reports on workshops for the development of local agendas for action in seismic rehabilitation. It includes directions for convening additional workshops and teaching materials which can be used in such workshops. This infor-mation is directed primarily to groups that are interested in planning for local seismic mitigation in existing buildings who wish to convene a workshop to initiate the process.

Development of Guidelines for Seismic Rehabilitation of Buildings - Phase 1: issues identification and Resolution (FEMA-237, November 1992, 150 pages). Prepared by the Applied Technology Council, Redwood City CA (ATC-28).

This report is intended to assist in the preparation of Guide-lines for the Seismic Rehabilitation of Existing Buildings. The report identifies and analyzes issues that may impact the preparation of the Guidelines and offers alternative as well as recommended solutions to facilitate their develop-ment and implementation. Also discussed are issues con-cerned with the scope, implementation, and format of the Guidelines, as well as coordination efforts, and legal, politi-cal, social, and economic aspects. Issues concerning his-toric buildings, research and new technology, seismicity and mapping, as well as engineering philosophy and goals are discussed. The report concludes with a presentation of is-sues concerned with the development of specific provisions for major structural and nonstructural elements.

Publications concerning existing buildings can be obtained at no charge from the FEMA Distribution Center, P.O. Box 2012, Jessup, MD 20794. Telephone: 1-800-480-2520; Fax: (301 ) 497-6378.

This list was prepared by the Information Service, National Center for Earthquake Engineering Research (NCEER), 304 Capen Hall, University at Buffalo, Buffalo, NY 14260-2200. Telephone: (716) 645-3377; Fax: (716) 645-3379; E-Mail: nernceer@ ubvms.cc.buffalo.edu; WWW: http://nceer.eng.buffalo.edu. Revised 10/20/95

a policy guide to steel moment frame construction · pdf filea policy guide to steel moment...

Documents