.- • . . ._ .

Earthquako h;,,:,,( .(,c* Survey.• f t" l u i- collection

Seismic Restraint of Mechanicaland Electrical Systems

April 26, 2000

EPICS 251, Team 4Mandy BonkoskiJoseph CarstenBen Hansuld

James HochnadelDan Ryman

Prepared for:Michael D. Haughey, P.E.

The RMH Group, Inc.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Our client, Michael Haughey, posed the question, "are the seismic restraint provisions formechanical and electrical systems of the 1997 Uniform Building Code being enforced orcomplied with in the State of Colorado?" We were tasked to address solutions to this dilemma.Additionally, how might we best determine whether the seismic risk in Colorado warrants theprovisions that are currently in place for the seismic restraint of mechanical and electricalsystems, considering:

1. Earthquake history and risk in Colorado2. Economic and non-economic impacts of earthquakes in low seismic zones3. Influence of building inspectors4. Influence of building owners, architects, and engineers5. Seismic provisions of other states

For the majority of these parameters, most of our research consisted of knowledgeable publishedsources. However, our research of building inspectors, building owners, architects, andengineers was mainly accomplished via: interviews and questionnaires.

Based on this research, we arrived at the following six conclusions:

1. Earthquake risk exists in Colorado2. Significant damage can result from moderate earthquakes3. Seismic restraint is weakly enforced in Colorado4. Most building owners, architects, and engineers do not perceive earthquake risk in

Colorado5. Building owners, architects, and engineers are generally unaware of the seismic restraint

provisions for mechanical and electrical systems of the Uniform Building Code6. Seismic Safety Commissions in other states have been successful at mitigating seismic

risk

Conclusions three and five answer Michael Haughey's initial question by demonstrating that theseismic restraint provisions for mechanical and electrical systems are not being enforced orimplemented. Our research revealed that building inspectors have for the most part not enforcedthese provisions because they believe they are unnecessary. We feel the combination of this lackof enforcement and conclusion four above lead to the non-implementation of seismic restraint bybuilders. We arrived at conclusion one after discovering that several moderate earthquakes (5.-0to 6.5 on the Richter Scale) have occurred in the past 150 years in Colorado and that expertspredict that more will occur in the future. Meanwhile, conclusion two was determined after welearned that moderate earthquakes have caused billions of dollars in property damage, resulted inthousands of injuries and deaths, and initiated devastating psychological trauma. If one were tooccur in Colorado, the effect could be much worse than that of those we researched due toColorado's modern infrastructure and lack of preparation. As a result, we believe thatconclusions one and two show that the seismic restraint provisions for mechanical and electricalsystems are necessary in Colorado, essentially answering our central question.

Based on these conclusions, we have produced four recommendations for the implementationand enforcement of seismic restraint for mechanical and electrical systems in Colorado:

1. Creation of a Seismic Safety Commission2. Formation of a Standard Set of Regulations for Focus Counties3. Study of Earthquake Impacts and Seismic Safety Commission Requirements4. Seismic Education Programs for Focus Counties

We believe that each recommendation is justified because the benefits of improved buildingoccupant safety and drastically mitigated economic damage far outweigh the cost of theirimplementation. Utah expects to incur $3.15 billion in damage to non-reinforced buildingsduring their next fairly large earthquake. This and other western states have shown no hesitationto take action to reduce this damage and protect the health, safety, and welfare of their citizens.One method that has been successful in Utah and California is the Seismic Safety Commission,which writes seismic regulations and assists in their adoption and enforcement. We feel thisCommission could be successful in Colorado if building participants are properly informed ofthe risk of moderate earthquakes that exists along the Front Range. Our fourth recommendationaddresses this by mandating education programs for building participants in counties of highestseismic risk (Larimer, Boulder, Jefferson, Denver, and Adams). The standard set of regulations(conclusion two) specifies the code requirements, enforcement parties, and implementationparties for these focus counties and should be an integral part of the education programs we arerecommending. Finally, the study of earthquake impacts and Seismic Safety Commissionrequirements brings all of these recommendations together by further justifying and definingeach of our recommendations. While implementation of each would afford the greatestopportunity for success, achievement of any one recommendation or combination thereof wouldbe better than no action at all. If given the initiative, a knowledgeable body with the properresources can act on these recommendations and begin improving the earthquake safety ofColorado's buildings.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Executive Summary \

List of Figures iv

I. Introduction: The Seismic Restraint of Mechanical and Electrical Systems 1

II. Research Parameters 3

2.1 Earthquake History 32.2 Impact of Moderate Earthquakes 62.3 Influence of Building Inspectors 92.4 Influence of Building Owners, Architects, and Engineers 112.5 Successful Implementation of Seismic Restraint 13

in. Conclusions Obtained From Parameter Research 14

IV. Recommendations for the Implementation and Enforcement of 17Seismic Restraint for Mechanical and Electrical Systems

Annotated Bibliography 20

Appendix A: Magnitude (Richter Scale) and Intensity (Modified Mercalli Scale) 28

Appendix B: Summary of Mechanical and Electrical Equipment Hazards 29

Appendix C: Earthquake Property Damage 30

in

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1.1: Mechanical and Electrical System 1

Figure 1.2: Seismic Zone Map of the United States 2

Figure 2.1: Historical Earthquake Intensity Zones 4

Figure 2.2: Seismic Danger by County 5

Figure 2.3: Earthquake Impact Summary 7

Figure 2.4: Unrestrained Lighting Fixtures 8

Figure 2.5: Inspector Survey Results 10

IV

Introduction: The Seismic Restraint of Mechanical and Electrical Systems

This report describes the research we have conducted and recommendations we have producedconcerning the seismic restraint of mechanical and electrical systems. We, EPICS 251 Team 4 atthe Colorado School of Mines, conducted this research in order to answer the following centralresearch question: how might we best determine whether the seismic risk in Colorado warrantsthe provisions that are currently in place for the seismic restraint of mechanical and electricalsystems, considering:

1 . Earthquake history and risk in Colorado2. Economic and non-economic impacts of earthquakes in low seismic zones3. Influence of building inspectors4. Influence of building owners, architects, and engineers5 . Seismic provisions of other states

Each member of our team— Mandy Bonkoski, Joseph Carsten, Ben Hansuld, James Hochnadel,and Dan Ryman— researched one of the above parameters of the central research questionregarding the seismic restraint of mechanical and electrical systems. We attempted an answer tohelp our client (Michael Haughey of The RMH Group, Inc.). The dilemma posed by Mr.Haughey concerns the lack of implementation and enforcement of the seismic restraintprovisions for mechanical and electrical systems of the 1997 Uniform Building Code.Mechanical and electrical systems consist of HVAC (heating, ventilation, and air conditioning)units, boilers, fans, cooling towers, and similar equipment. Figure 1.1 is an example of amechanical and electrical system of the nature being examined in this report. In this photo, theunit is a small HVAC system component (an air compressor).

Figure 1.1: Mechanical and Electrical System---- '

Note: This air compressor must comply with the seismic provisions for mechanical and electricalsystems of the 1997 Uniform Building Code.

Source: Briefing Paper 6, Part B. ATC/SEAOC Joint Venture Training Curriculum [1].

Mr. Haughey has raised a question regarding the competitive impact on engineers andcontractors who may lose contract bids by implementing these seismic restraint provisions,which add to the cost of the bid, while their competitors win bids by ignoring them. A primaryreason for this problem is the low seismic zone in which Colorado resides (mostly zone 1),which causes builders to perceive little earthquake risk in this region. Refer to Figure 1.2 toview the Seismic Zone Map of the United States. Seismic risk increases in intensity on this mapfrom a low in zone 0 to a high in zone 4. By answering our central research question, we will beable to provide Mr. Haughey with recommendations to enable a level playing field in theconstruction business in Colorado.

Figure 1.2: Seismic Zone Map of the United States

Note: Seismic risk increases in intensity from zone 0 (lowest) to zone 4 (highest). Colorado isprimarily zone 1, with some zone 0, and a small patch of zone 2B in the south-central portion ofthe state.

Source: 7997 Uniform Building Code, International Conference of Building Officials, p. 2-37[2].

RESEARCH PARAMETERS

2.1 Earthquake History

Though the recorded earthquake history of Colorado is short, there have been events ofmagnitude 5 to 6 and higher. Some of these earthquakes were man-made by fluid injection at theRocky Mountain Arsenal, and if an earthquake were to occur today, most people believe that itwould be along this same fault. It is not a matter of whether this event is going to occur, it ismatter of when. If a mechanical or electrical system is not properly restrained, much damage canresult. Damage to infrastructure is not the only threat, as there are secondary geologic hazardsare associated with earthquakes. Landslides and liquefaction can cause severe damage tobuildings and roads.

There are 90 potentially active faults that have documented movement within the past 1.6 millionyears. There are also several thousands of other faults that have little to no potential forproducing movement in future years [3:1]. The most damaging earthquake in Colorado's historyoccurred in 1882. It was the first to ever cause damage in Denver. The magnitude of thisearthquake is highly disputed. Some authors believe it to be a 6.2 on the Richter scale, whereasothers believe it to only be a 5.0. On the Modified Mercalli Scale, it is thought to be a VII.These magnitudes indicate moderate damage to the buildings that were in the area in 1882.Appendix A presents a table that compares the Richter and Modified Mercalli scales, whichshould be helpful in evaluating these magnitudes.

The next earthquakes that had an impact on the Denver area began in 1962. These earthquakeswere due to the Rocky Mountain Arsenal disposal of waste fluids into the ground. Studies havefound that even though these earthquakes were triggered by fluid injection, tectonic stressesexisted before the injections. Since the stresses existed, the fluid injection merely lubricated thefaults, and it is possible that these faults could move naturally in the future [4:104]. Figure 2.1shows the maximum historical earthquake intensities in Colorado. It should clarify how severeearthquakes have historically been in each area of the state.

Figure 2.1: Historical Earthquake Intensity Zones

Note: This map depicts historical earthquake intensity zones for the State of Colorado. Romanletters represent Modified Mercalli Scale intensities. This scale is a qualitative measure of thedegree of shaking to be expected during an earthquake and its effects on man-made structures.

Source: Kirkham and Rogers, 1981 [4].

The main risk along the Front Range is building damage. Not only damage to a building'sstructure, but damage to its interior as well. Light fixtures, ceiling fans, and pipes, if notproperly restrained, could fall if a magnitude 5 or 6 earthquake occurred. With the increases ininfrastructure along the Front Range, there is a risk many people could be injured and propertydamage could be great. Figure 2.2 is a map we have prepared that shows counties of Coloradowith the highest degree of seismic danger, based on both earthquake history and population.

Figure 2.2; Seismic Danger by Count

ArchuletaS Conejos fCostilla

Note: This is a map representing seismic danger by county, based on historical earthquakeintensity and population. Areas are coded as follows—• Red - Areas of Colorado with the highest earthquake risk• Green - Areas of Colorado with moderate earthquake risk• White - Areas of Colorado with minimal earthquake risk

Sources: "Colorado Earthquake Hazards", Colorado Office of Emergency Management, 1999[5]. "Popular 1990 census facts for Colorado", Colorado Demography Section,http://www.dlg.oem2.state.co.us/demog/cenfacts.htm [6].

It is almost impossible to predict an earthquake. However, it is realistic to have a time frame ofwhen an earthquake might occur. This time frame can be from 10 to 1000 years, but sources sayan earthquake will occur in Colorado's future. The problem with prediction of earthquakes isthat it is hard to determine when the tectonic stresses have built up enough energy to release.Nonetheless, all sources say that it's not a matter of if, but a matter of when. Again, due toincreased infrastructure in the Denver Metropolitan area, the impact that a magnitude 6earthquake would have is large. Also, another factor that could pose dangerous consequences isthat the public is unaware of the potential for an earthquake to occur in Colorado.

2.2 Impact of Moderate Earthquakes

The economic and non-economic impact of moderate earthquakes can be immense. This fact isgraphically demonstrated by four specific quakes. These quakes range in magnitude from 5.3 to5.9. The quakes are listed below along with the reason each was chosen.

• Daly City, California earthquake of 1957, chosen for eyewitness accounts ofemotional trauma

• Whittier Narrows, California earthquake of 1987, demonstrates damage possibilitiesin a modern city with up to date building codes

• Newcastle, Australia earthquake of 1989, shows earthquake impact in a modern citylocated in a low seismic risk zone

» Agadir, Morocco earthquake of 1960, illustrates the damage possible when there areno seismic building provisions and substandard building practices are employed

On March 22, 1957 a magnitude 5.3 earthquake struck the San Francisco Bay Area. Theepicenter was located on the San Andreas Fault near Daly City [7]. Although no one was killed,forty were injured, and property damage was estimated at $1 million (see Figure 2.3 for asummary and Appendix C for photographs of the earthquake) [8]. Although the economicimpact of this quake was not catastrophic, many suffered severe emotional distress. Severaleyewitnesses describe the Daly City earthquake as the most intense and terrifying earthquakeexperience they have ever had. One witness even described it as worse than the Loma Prietaearthquake that measured 7.1 on the Richter scale. These accounts come from people who werechildren at the time of the Daly City quake, which may account for why they found the quake tobe so frightening [9].

The Whittier Narrows quake struck the Los Angeles Area on October 1, 1987 and had amagnitude of 5.9. Eight lives were lost in the quake [10] and 200 were injured [11]. More than10,400 buildings were damaged [12], and total property damage was estimated at $358 million(see Figure 2.3 for a summary and Appendix C for photographs of the earthquake) [10]. Inaddition, disaster relief from all federal agencies totaled an astounding $191 billion [13].Nonstructural damage was also rampant. Light fixtures, suspended ceilings, and ductwork notconstructed to comply with seismic building codes failed [14:55]. One person was even killedwhen connectors for a pre-cast concrete fascia panel failed. The panel fell two stories and landedon the person [15].

A magnitude 5.6 earthquake struck Newcastle, Australia on December 28, 1989. At the time ofthe quake, this area was considered to have low seismic risk. Thirteen people were killed in thequake and 162 hospitalized. Sixty thousand buildings were damaged and 300 demolished. Morethan 35,000 insurance claims were filed and insured losses totaled $1 billion. Total propertydamage was estimated at $4 billion (see Figure 2.3 for a summary and Appendix C forphotographs of the earthquake) [16]. Several major hospitals sustained serious damage, whichcaused a disruption of medical services. One hospital was even evacuated due to fears that itwould collapse during an aftershock. The situation in Newcastle bears a striking resemblance tothat in Colorado. Before this earthquake occurred, most in Newcastle did not believe a moderateearthquake could take place. Moreover, this quake did not occur on a plate margin, as is

common in places such as California, but was an intra-plate quake. This is the type ofearthquake that could occur in Colorado [17].

Agadir, Morocco was struck by a magnitude 5.9 earthquake on February 29, 1960 [18]. Out of apopulation of 33,000 [19:11], at least 12,000 were killed and another 12,000 injured [19:15].Property damage was also enormous. Eighty to ninety percent of the structures in the centralpart of the city were totally demolished (see Figure 2.3 for a summary and Appendix C forphotographs of the earthquake) [19:82]. There are several reasons that this earthquake was sodevastating. Stone masonry structures were extremely prevalent in the city. Most wereconstructed without reinforcement or tie-ins. The majority of these structures collapsed and wereresponsible for a large share of the injuries and deaths [19:33]. In addition, with no seismicbuilding codes in place, most structures lacked significant resistance to lateral forces [19:31].Several large buildings constructed with reinforced concrete frames, but only designed forvertical loads, collapsed [19:42].

Figure 2.3: Earthquake Impact Summary

LocationDaly City, CAa

WhittierNarrows, CAb

Newcastle,Australia11

Agadir,Morocco6

DateMarch 22, 1957October 1, 1987

December 28,1989February 29,1960

Magnitude5.35.9

5.6

5.9

Property Damage$1 million

$358 million

$4 billion

Dollar AmountUnknown

Injuries40

200C

162

12,000

Deaths08

13

12,000

Sources: a [8], b [10], c [11], d [16], e [19]

Each of the above earthquakes was smaller in magnitude than the estimated 6.2 magnitude quakethat occurred in Colorado in 1882. This earthquake caused little damage due to the fact that thestate was sparsely populated at the time. Since that time, a massive population buildup and agreat deal of development have taken place along the Front Range. Correlating this fact with thedamage estimates from the earthquakes presented above, if the 1882 quake were to occur today,damage could reach into the hundreds of millions.

As discussed with the Whittier Narrows earthquake above, an important element of earthquakedamage is that which occurs to nonstructural components (such as mechanical and electricalsystems). Ambrose and Vergun in Design for Earthquakes note that failure of manynonstructural systems may not lead to building collapse, but "will still constitute danger foroccupants and cost of replacement or repair" [20:231]. They particularly emphasize the dangercaused by the failure of heating systems, which can result in gas poisoning or explosions. Figure2.4 demonstrates the danger posed by mechanical and electrical systems with no seismicrestraint, in this case light fixtures that have fallen from a ceiling. Appendix B provides abroader summary of hazards posed by numerous pieces of mechanical and electrical equipment,which should help in understanding the danger that can result from their failure.

Figure 2.4: Unrestrained Lighting Fixtures

Note: Unrestrained lighting fixtures at Olive View Hospital following the San Fernandoearthquake of 1971.

Source: Nonstructural Issues of Seismic Design and Construction, Berkeley, CA: EarthquakeEngineering Research Institute, 1984, p. 21 [21].

It is obvious that the economic and non-economic impact of moderate earthquakes can bedisastrous. These smaller earthquakes, which measure less than 6.0 on the Richter scale, cancause immense damage. Property damage can climb into the billions of dollars and, in certaincircumstances, the death toll into the thousands. These quakes can also cause severe emotionaltrauma to those who live through them, especially children. These facts underscore the need forseismic provisions in the building code. These provisions serve to lessen the impact of a seismicevent and, as witnessed, even a small event can have a tremendous impact. See Appendix C toview photographs of property damage from each of the four earthquakes previously discussed.

2.3 Influence of Building Inspectors

Determining the attitude and influence of building inspectors along the Front Range of Coloradowas the main research goal for the third parameter of our central question. The sources used toresearch this aspect of seismic restraint primarily consist of a survey and personal interviews.

The Uniform Building Code (UBC) is the most widely used building code in the western UnitedStates. However, this does not mean that every city, county, or state is using the same version oreven the same parts. The UBC is updated every three years, but not all cities, counties, andstates adopt it at the same time. Arapahoe County and the City of Aurora are two offices inColorado that are currently using the 1994 UBC and waiting for the 2000 UBC to be published[22]. The seismic requirements for anchorage of nonstructural building components (mechanicaland electrical systems) have been gradually increasing since their introduction in 1927. Severalchanges to these criteria of the UBC occurred between 1994 and 1997, which moderatelyincreased the requirements. First, seismic provisions were revised from an allowable stressdesign basis to a strength design basis. In addition, the determination of earthquake designforces became more complicated. This is due to the fact that the 1997 UBC requiresconsideration of soil type, proximity to active faults, and elevation in the building [1]. Thesechanges and the more stringent requirements show the need for most of the Front Range to adoptthe most recent version of the code at the same time.

We conducted a survey of Front Range inspectors or plans examiners. The goal of this surveywas to get an honest idea of how these people feel and act on the issues of seismic restraint inColorado. Each respondent was first notified of the survey and its contents. The survey wasthen sent to each respondent. Out of eighteen surveys sent, ten were returned. The results aresummarized in Figure 2.5.

Figure 2.5: Inspector Survey Results

1. Are you aware of the seismic restraint section of the 1997 UBC that warrants restraint of electrical andmechanical equipment?

100% were aware of this section of the code.

2. If so, do you feel that this section of the code is necessary for the Front Range and 1-70 corridor areas?

60% feel that this section of the code is unnecessary.10% replied that their department used special supports that account for lateral movement.30% feel it is necessary.

3. Do you believe that Colorado (zone 1) could possibly have an earthquake of 5.0-6.0 Richter magnitude in thenext one hundred years?

30% said no.70% replied, "Anything is possible."

4. How often do builders and contractors comply with this code?

30% indicated that this question does not apply.60% replied that they comply if a professional engineer requires it.10% replied that the section is used quite regularly.

5. Do you or any of your colleagues enforce this code?

10% replied, "Not in Colorado."70% said no.20% said yes (if already included in the design by the engineer).

6. If so, how often?

90% did not reply to this question.10% felt that this question did not apply.

7. What other types of seismic restraint code or ground movement code does your office enforce?

10% said UBC.90% replied that their office does not enforce any other seismic code.

The above results show that all of the inspectors surveyed are aware of the seismic restraintsections of the Uniform Building Code. However, it shows that only twenty percent of theseinspectors enforce this code in their region of Colorado. The answer to Michael Haughey'squestion regarding enforcement of the seismic restraint requirements for mechanical andelectrical systems is reflected in this finding. The weak enforcement of the seismic provisionsfor mechanical and electrical systems leads to the conclusion that the inspectors surveyed do notfeel that this section of the code is necessary in Colorado. This is represented in question 2 ofthe survey results, in which sixty percent of the respondents do not feel that this section of thecode is necessary for the Front Range and 1-70 corridor areas.

10

2.4 Influence of Building Owners, Architects, and Engineers

In trying to answer our central research question, it is very important to understand the influenceof building owners, architects, and engineers. We sought to answer the following two questionsto accomplish this:

1. What is the opinion of building owners, architects, and engineers regarding the seismicrestraint of mechanical and electrical systems?

2. Are they willing to comply with these seismic requirements?

We concentrated our research of building owners on those associated with industry (especiallyhigh technology industry), which has a huge financial interest in the integrity of its buildings andthe systems therein. As a result of our concentration on industry, our survey of building ownersmay not present an accurate picture of the general influence building owners have on theimplementation of seismic restraint for mechanical and electrical systems. More detailedresearch into this area might include input from owners of real estate holding companies andadministrators of federal government buildings.

Although we sent questionnaires to eleven architectural firms, we only received responses fromthree. Nonetheless, it appears that architects do not have much influence on the implementationof seismic restraint for mechanical and electrical systems. They all indicated it was theresponsibility of an engineer or contractor to comply with these requirements.

We also had difficulty contacting engineers—of ten questionnaires sent, only four were returned.Nonetheless, engineers appear to have the most influence on the implementation of seismicrestraint for mechanical and electrical systems of the three groups researched, due to their greaterknowledge of these systems. Figure 2.3 shows equipment whose damage could have beenprevented by an engineer applying to seismic restraint his knowledge of mechanical andelectrical systems.

Based on our research, we arrived at four conclusions regarding the influence of buildingowners, architects, and engineers on the seismic restraint of mechanical and electrical systems:

1. Building owners, architects, and engineers in Colorado are generally unaware of seismicrestraint provisions for mechanical and electrical systems.

2. Architects and engineers in Colorado tend to pass the responsibility of complying withseismic regulations to other parties. This delegation of responsibility appears to preventthe implementation of seismic restraint from being accomplished.

11

3. Seismic provisions are not actively enforced in Colorado. This effectively answers Mr.Haughey's question by demonstrating that most building inspectors are not enforcing theprovisions for mechanical and electrical systems. This lack of enforcement does notprovide much incentive to comply with building codes, and may be another negativeinfluence on the effort to achieve compliance with the seismic provisions of the codes.Finally, this conclusion agrees with the findings for parameter three of our centralresearch question discussed earlier: the influence of building inspectors.

4. Most building owners, architects, and engineers in Colorado do not consider a moderateearthquake to be a serious threat during their lifetimes. This lack of perception of riskmakes it difficult for these individuals to seriously consider the implementation ofseismic restraint.

In summary, building owners, architects, and engineers are generally not aware of the seismicrestraint provisions for mechanical and electrical systems. This is probably due to weakenforcement of these seismic restraint provisions by building inspectors. This weak enforcementlikely stems from the findings of research parameter three that inspectors believe that the seismicrestraint provisions for mechanical and electrical systems are unnecessary in Colorado.

12

2.5 Successful Implementation of Seismic Restraint

In trying to determine how other states have successfully implemented seismic restraint, welooked into features of both Utah and California that have helped them to prepare forearthquakes. From our research, we found that both of these states have taken an active interestto ensure that their states will be as safe as possible when an earthquake hits. One way they havedone this is by forming a Seismic Safety Commission that is the main authority in each stateregarding seismic. These commissions do a variety of things in their individual states rangingfrom issuing a statewide plan outlining where the state is lacking in seismic provisions and whatneeds to be done to lobbying and writing seismic legislation. Through the creation of theSeismic Safety Commissions, both California and Utah have minimized the impact that futureearthquakes will have on their state.

In conjunction with the Seismic Safety Commissions, California and Utah have helped to ensurethe safety of their populace during an earthquake by adopting and enforcing the seismicprovisions of the Uniform Building Code (UBC). In California, state law requires that thebuilding codes are followed and that local jurisdictions follow the same edition of the buildingcode as the state; which includes the UBC, as well as amendments to the UBC [23Jr In addition,local jurisdictions are responsible for enforcing the building code through state licensed buildinginspectors. By licensing building inspectors through the state, California has helped to guaranteethat the inspectors are aware of the seismic provisions and that they will check to make sure thatthey are being followed.

Just like California, Utah has also adopted the UBC statewide and it requires that all localbuilding jurisdictions follow the UBC and any amendments the state has made to it. Utah alsorequires that everyone who inspects any construction project to be licensed by the state.Although Utah does not have any state inspectors enforcing the codes, they do ensure that theseismic code is being followed through licensing anyone inspecting any construction site.

To set up and maintain the Seismic Safety Commissions, Utah and California have had to incurthe cost of these commissions; however, these states are willing to continue to expend money onthe commissions because of the benefits derived from them. For instance, Utah only recentlyadopted the seismic provisions of the UBC. As a result, there are still many buildings in thisstate that are not built to seismic code. The next big earthquake in Utah is expected to cause $4.5billion worth of property damage, with 70% of this cost coming from un-reinforced buildings[24]. With numbers like these in front of the politicians in Utah, it comes as no surprise that theyare willing to continue to fund the Seismic Safety Commission and also fund projects to retrofitolder buildings so that they comply with the seismic provisions of the UBC. The cost ofmaintaining a seismic watchdog like the Seismic Safety Commission and retrofitting oldbuildings is minimal compared to the $3.15 billion that Utah could incur (damage to non-reinforced buildings) if an earthquake occurred tomorrow.

The key to both California and Utah's success is that both perceive earthquakes to be a threat intheir states. By accepting the fact that earthquakes will occur in their states in the future, bothCalifornia and Utah have taken steps to lessen the impact of future earthquakes and successfullyinstituted a system where seismic provisions are created and enforced.

13

Conclusions Obtained From Parameter Research

Based on our research of the five areas previously discussed in the body of this report, we havearrived at several conclusions.

1. Earthquake risk exists in ColoradoFairly large earthquakes (5.0-6.5 in Richter magnitude) have occurred in the past 150 years inColorado. Experts predict earthquakes similar to these will occur in the future, they just don'tknow when. Given the modern infrastructure along the Front Range, where much of thehistorical earthquake activity has been focused and where much of Colorado's population islocated, a moderate earthquake in this area will have a much more severe economic and physicalimpact than those that occurred in the past. We believe this risk of significant economic andphysical damage merits further research into the impact of moderate earthquakes (discussed inrecommendation three in the recommendations section), which can be used to improve buildingoccupant safety and reduce economic consequences in the event of a moderate earthquake.

2. Significant damage can result from moderate earthquakesThe economic and non-economic impaets of moderate earthquakes can be quite severe. Propertydamage can climb into the billions of dollars and, in certain circumstances, the death toll into thethousands. These earthquakes can also cause severe emotional trauma to those who live throughthem, especially children. Implementation of seismic provisions of building codes has proven tobe an effective way to mitigate this damage. For instance, seventy percent of the damage causedby the next fairly large earthquake in Utah is expected to occur because buildings and theircontents were not properly reinforced. We believe the benefits that can be obtained throughseismic restraint—improved safety of building occupants and significant mitigation of economicdamage—merit its cost. In order to accomplish these benefits, however, Colorado must begin toenforce the seismic provisions of the Uniform Building Code. We feel the best way toaccomplish the implementation of seismic restraint for mechanical and electrical systems is toimplement the recommendations described in the following recommendations section.

3. Seismic restraint is weakly enforced in ColoradoThe results of our building inspector, building owner, architect, and engineer research show thatthe seismic provisions of the Uniform Building Code for mechanical and electrical systems areweakly enforced in Colorado. Only twenty percent of building inspectors in our survey enforcethese provisions and then only in those instances when already designed into the project. Theinput of building owners, architects, and engineers we questioned mirrors this finding. Sincesixty percent of the building inspectors in our survey feel that these regulations are unnecessaryin Colorado, we believe this is the primary reason they are not enforced. Finally, we believe thisweak enforcement—coupled with the general unawareness of these seismic restraint provisionsand lack of concern for earthquakes demonstrated by building owners, architects, and engineers—directly leads to the weak implementation of seismic provisions for mechanical and electricalsystems. Since builders are already unconcerned about implementing these seismic provisions,any absence of enforcement provides little incentive to comply with regulations. As a result, webelieve Colorado has a need for education programs for building inspectors (discussed in ourfourth recommendation in the following recommendations section). As discussed underconclusion two, we feel the cost of these programs will be significantly outweighed by the

14

outweighed by the increased safety of building occupants and dramatic mitigation of earthquakedamage that result from implementation of seismic restraint for mechanical and electricalsystems. These education programs should not only demonstrate to inspectors the need forseismic restraint, but also teach inspectors how to enforce seismic restraint provisions.

4. Most building owners, architects, and engineers do not perceive earthquake risk inColoradoThe results of our research of building owners, architects, and engineers showed that most ofthese individuals do not feel a moderate earthquake can occur in Colorado during their lifetimes.We feel this lack of concern for earthquakes is a major cause of the general unawareness ofseismic restraint provisions for mechanical and electrical systems discussed in conclusion fivebelow. As outlined in our third conclusion above, the combination of this lack of perception ofrisk with weak enforcement by building inspectors provides little incentive for builders tocomply with regulations. We feel the lack of perception of risk by the building communityshows a need for the following: 1. Education programs for engineers and contractors thatdemonstrate the earthquake risk in Colorado (discussed in our first conclusion above) and 2.Further research into seismic risk in Colorado (in order to accurately convey this seismic risk toengineers-and contractors). This education program is discussed in our fourth recommendationin the following recommendations section, while this research is described in our thirdrecommendation from that section of our report. As discussed in conclusion two, we feel theminimal up front cost of this research and these education programs is justified because buildingsafety will be enhanced and economic costs resulting from a moderate earthquake will bedramatically mitigated.

5. Building owners, architects, and engineers are generally unaware of the seismic restraintprovisions for mechanical and electrical systems of the Uniform Building CodeAdditional results of our building owner, architect, and engineer research show that these groupsare generally unaware of the seismic restraint provisions for mechanical and electrical systems ofthe Uniform Building Code. This unawareness is likely tied to both their unconcern forearthquake activity (discussed in our fourth conclusion, above) and the weak enforcement ofthese seismic provisions by building inspectors. It is quite difficult to have satisfactoryimplementation of seismic restraint provisions if a building sector has minimal knowledge ofthese provisions. As a result, we believe education programs for engineers and contractors areneeded in Colorado (discussed in our fourth recommendation on the following page). Asdiscussed in conclusion four, we feel the benefits of safety and damage mitigation tremendouslyoutweigh the relatively small cost of conducting these programs.

6. Seismic Safety Commissions in other states have been successful at mitigating seismicriskThe key to both California and Utah's success at mitigating seismic risk is that both perceiveearthquakes to be a threat in their states. As a result, both California and Utah have adoptedSeismic Safety Commissions, which are the main authorities regarding seismic issues in theirstates. These commissions have issued statewide plans outlining where the state is lacking inseismic provisions and what needs to be done, as well as lobbied for and written seismiclegislation. In addition, they have played a key role in the adoption and enforcement of theseismic provisions of the Uniform Building Code. The cost of maintaining a Seismic Safety

15

Commission or similar body is minimal compared to what a state could incur due to a moderateearthquake. For example, Utah is expected to incur $3.15 billion in damage to non-reinforcedbuildings during their next fairly large earthquake. This damage could be prevented if seismicprovisions of the Uniform Building Code are enforced and implemented. Politicians in Utahhave been willing to continue to fund the Seismic Safety Commission in their state because theybelieve its cost merits the benefits of improved safety and decreased economic impact fromearthquakes. Since the cost of these commissions is marginal compared to the benefits that canbe derived from them, we recommend they be implemented in any state with a history ofmoderate or large earthquakes. As a result, we believe a Seismic Safety Commission could besuccessful at mitigating seismic risk in Colorado and could be an integral part of initiatingenforcement and implementation of seismic restraint for mechanical and electrical systems in theareas of Colorado with the greatest degree of seismic risk. This recommendation, as well as therecommendation for further research into the costs and requirements for a Seismic SafetyCommission, is described in the recommendations section of our report.

16

Recommendations for the Implementation and Enforcement of Seismic Restraint forMechanical and Electrical Systems

We have produced four recommendations based on the conclusions described in the previoussection.

1. Creation of a Seismic Safety CommissionCalifornia and Utah each have a Seismic Safety Commission that is the main authorityconcerning seismic issues in its state. This Commission is charged with writing seismicregulations and assisting in the adoption and enforcement of seismic provisions of the UniformBuilding Code. The states in which these Commissions operate have been willing to pay therelatively small cost to create and maintain these Commissions because the benefits of increasedsafety and decreased economic loss that result from implementation of seismic restraint faroutweigh these costs. For example, Utah is expected to incur $3.15 billion in damage to non-reinforced buildings during their next fairly large earthquake. Therefore, we recommend thatColorado create a Seismic Safety Commission that would be charged with setting seismicstandards and ensuring compliance. The Commission could be created via a legislative billsponsored by a legislative member, but could be written by a knowledgeable source oh seismicissues. This bill would then have to be passed by the legislature. The following should beincluded in the context of this bill: how many Commission members are needed, who qualifies asCommission members, how Commission members should be appointed, to whom theCommission should report, how the Commission shall be funded, and how much theCommission will cost to create and operate. One possible scenario is for the Commission to beunder the jurisdiction of the Colorado Department of Natural Resources, in particular the StateGeologist. The State Geologist's knowledge of seismic activity and risks would be a primaryreason for this office to control the activity of the Seismic Safety Commission. We believe it isadvisable for at least one member of each of the following groups to be represented on theCommission: architects, engineers, building code officials, and contractors. Another possibilityfor the Commission is for it to report to and be overseen by a legislative committee. Finally, theCommission will not come without a price. We were unable to determine the price of theSeismic Safety Commission in Utah or California or how they were funded. However, unlessfederal or private funding is available, the Commission would need to be funded either throughgeneral tax revenues or an excise tax [25:18]. Further research is needed to properly determineand justify the guidelines for the creation of a Seismic Safety Commission in Colorado. Ourthird recommendation describes this and other research.

2. Formation of a Standard Set of Regulations for Focus CountiesWe recommend that a standard set of regulations be made concerning the seismic restraint ofmechanical and electrical systems. This set of regulations would state what is required to meetseismic code, who enforces the regulations, and who is to comply with them. We believe it isadvisable to focus the initial application of this set of regulations to Larimer, Boulder, Jefferson,Denver, and Adams counties based on their higher degree of seismic risk. These counties arethose colored in red from Figure 2.2. The figure represents seismic danger by county inColorado, based on historical earthquake intensity and population. The Seismic SafetyCommission mentioned above could possibly draft and enforce these regulations. We alsorecommend that these regulations apply not just to mechanical and electrical systems, but

17

structural components as well. Research must be undertaken to determine the details of thisstandard set of regulations. These details include code requirements, persons responsible forenforcement of the regulations, who must comply with the regulations, and in which area of thestate to begin instituting these regulations. We feel the cost of creating and maintaining thisstandard set of regulations is well justified by the increased safety of building occupants anddecreased economic damage resulting from a moderate earthquake. By concentrating theseregulations on only a few areas of high risk, we feel the State of Colorado would be making acost-effective and prudent move. The application of regulations to focus counties limits thescope of the operation, but provides a fairly sizable area to test the success of these regulations.If this standard set of regulations proves successful at the implementation of seismic restraint, itsapplication could be extended to other counties in Colorado with slightly less seismic risk.These counties are represented in green in Figure 2.2. As with our first recommendation, webelieve the benefits of increased safety and drastically decreased future earthquake damage meritthe relatively small upfront cost of forming this standard set of regulations.

3. Study of Earthquake Impacts and Seismic Safety Commission RequirementsIn order to adequately merit the creation of a Seismic Safety Commission to draft and enforceseismic safety provisions in the State of Colorado, we feel more research on the economic andnon-economic impacts of earthquakes is needed. It is advisable to focus this research on morerecent earthquakes in order to take into account the effect they have on modern infrastructure.This impact study could greatly influence the opinions of officials and builders regardingearthquake risk. In addition, we feel further research is necessary to determine what is needed toinstitute a Seismic Safety Commission in Colorado. Aspects of this research should include: theCommission's structure (i.e. number of members; how members should be appointed; whichdepartment, if any, the Commission should be under; and to whom the Commission shouldreport), how the Commission shall be funded, how much the Commission will cost to create andoperate, how the Commission should best be created, and the tasks the Commission should beempowered to perform. The results of these studies could be used to help enforce and implementseismic restraint provisions. Since increased enforcement and implementation of seismicrestraint has enormous safety and economic benefits, we believe the cost of conducting thesestudies is well justified.

4. Seismic Education Programs for Focus CountiesOur final recommendation is to conduct seismic education programs in counties of Coloradowith the greatest degree of seismic risk. The studies that have been outlined in this reportindicate that there is a lack of awareness, compliance, and enforcement in the state of Coloradoof Chapter 16 of the Uniform Building Code. We suggest that seismic education conferences beset up and made mandatory for all inspectors, engineers, and contractors who inspect or buildcommercial, industrial, or government buildings. We believe these conferences should just focuson these types of buildings because the seismic regulations of the Uniform Building Codegenerally apply to just these buildings. In addition, focusing on these buildings will reduce theoverall cost of the education programs, while concentrating on an area where the greatest impacton implementation and enforcement can be made. Besides focusing on specific building types,these seismic education programs should also be applied to only those counties in Colorado withthe highest seismic risk. We recommend these programs be instituted in Larimer, Boulder,Jefferson, Denver, and Adams counties because they have the highest combination of historical

18

earthquake intensities and current population. These counties are those in red on Figure 2.2.The Seismic Safety Commission that was discussed above could possibly host these conferences.However, if a Seismic Safety Commission is unavailable to perform this duty, the Department ofNatural Resources may be able to conduct these conferences. These conferences should includecode seminars on the section of the Uniform Building Code that entails seismic restraint ofstructures and mechanical and electrical equipment, with each inspector, engineer, or contractorattending only what applies to his or her field of work (i.e. structural engineers attend a structuralsession, while mechanical engineers attend a session on mechanical and electrical equipment).These conferences should also contain seminars on the earthquake risks in Colorado, botheconomic and non-economic. The study of earthquake impacts discussed in our thirdrecommendation above could be quite helpful in validating the need for these educationprograms and supplying the necessary information about seismic risk to convince participants inthe building process that seismic restraint is necessary. Finally, these conferences won't comewithout an economic cost to the State of Colorado. While we cannot determine the cost of theseseismic education programs, the study of earthquake impacts and seismic safety commissionrequirements discussed above could be supplemented with a study of the costs and source offunding for these education programs. Possible sources of funding include private funding,federal government funding, general state tax revenue, and excise tax revenue. We feel that thecost of creating and maintaining seismic education conferences will be largely outweighed by thebenefits of increased building occupant safety and mitigated economic costs from earthquakes,which justifies the existence of these seismic education programs.

SummaryEach of these four recommendations is designed to increase enforcement and compliance ofseismic provisions for mechanical and electrical systems. While implementation of each wouldafford the greatest opportunity for success, achievement of any one recommendation orcombination thereof would be better than no action at all. We feel that each action is justifiedbecause the benefits of improved building occupant safety and drastically mitigated economicdamage far outweigh the cost of implementing these recommendations. Other states havedemonstrated their willingness to pay these costs in order to achieve the future benefits ofseismic restraint. An ideal sequence of implementation of these recommendations would be toconduct the study of earthquake impacts and Seismic Safety Commission requirements, create aSeismic Safety Commission, use the Seismic Safety Commission to form a standard set ofseismic regulations for focus counties, and finally create and conduct seismic educationprograms in these focus counties.

19

ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY

Works Cited

[1] Briefing Paper 6, Part B: Design Example Using Current UBC Requirements. ATC/SEAOCJoint Venture Training Curriculum.

Provided a picture of a mechanical and electrical system. Detailed seismic requirements ofthe 1997 Uniform Building Code.

[2] 7997 Uniform Building Code, International Conference of Building Officials.

Gave detailed requirements for earthquake design of buildings. Provided a Seismic ZoneMap of the United States.

[3] Dee, Stephen E. "A Review of Return Periods and Magnitudes of Earthquakes in theDenver Metropolitan Area." Term Paper Submitted To Dr N.Y. Chang,University of Colorado at Denver, 1994.

A good source of information on the probability of earthquake occurrences.

[4] Kirkham, Robert and William Rogers. Earthquake Potential in Colorado: APreliminary Evaluation. Colorado Geological Survey; Department of NaturalResources, 1981.

Extremely helpful with analysis of the earthquake data that has been gathered.

[5] "Colorado Earthquake Hazards", Colorado Office of Emergency Management, 1999.

Provided historical earthquake intensities that we used to create seismic danger by countymap.

[6] "Popular 1990 census facts for Colorado", Colorado Demography Section,http://www.dlg.oem2.state.co.us/demog/cenfacts.htm.

Provided population data by county, which we used to create seismic danger by county map.

[7] "1957 San Francisco Earthquake," The Museum of the City of San Francisco,http://www.sfmuseum.org/hist2/1957.html (February 27, 2000).

This source provided limited information on the Daly City earthquake.

[8] "Frequently Asked Questions", University of California, Berkley SeismologicalLaboratory, http://www.seismo.berkeley.edu/seismo/faq/1957_0.html (February 13, 2000).

20

This site provided a good overview of the Daly City earthquake, as well as links to other siteswith information on the quake.

[9] Marsden, Richard, "Daly City Personal Accounts"http://www.cix.co.uk/~rigel/daly_accounts.htm (February 13, 2000).

This site has some good information on the Daly City earthquake as well as accounts of thequake from people who lived through it.

[10] "Whittier Narrows Earthquake," Southern California Earthquake Center,http://www.scec.gps.caltech.edu/whittier.html (February 20, 2000).

This site provided a brief overview of the Whittier Narrows earthquake.

[11] "Marin County CA - Earthquake Fact Sheet," Mann County California,http://emergency.marin.org/eq_cause.htm (February 27, 2000).

This source provides a few facts about eleven different earthquakes that occurred inCalifornia. This source provides very little detail.

[12] "Seismo-Watch Notable Earthquake: Whittier Narrows, California, M5.8Earthquake," Seismo-Watch, http://www.seismo-watch.com/EQSERVICES/

NotableEQ/Oct/1001.Whittier.html (February 27, 2000).

This site provides a brief overview of the Whittier Narrows earthquake as well as briefreports on other earthquakes.

[13] "Federal Emergency Management Agency," National Partnership for ReinventingGovernment, http://www.npr.gov/library/reports/FEMA3 .html(February 27, 2000).

This source is a FEMA report dealing with federal government expenditures on disaster reliefand ways to decrease these expenditures. Ways to do this include promoting disasterpreparedness and hazard mitigation.

[14] Seismic Considerations: Elementary and Secondary Schools. Washington, DC:Building Seismic Safety Council, 1990.

This source provides some good information on the economic impact of earthquakes and theeconomics earthquake design pertaining to public schools.

[15] "Facts," John A. Martin & Associates, Inc.,http://www.johnmartin.com/eqshow/647008_00.htm (February 12, 2000).

This site provides a large number of articles and reports on various earthquakes. It alsoprovides a large body of information on earthquakes in general.

21

[16] "earthq," Newcastle City Council,http://www.newcastle.infohunt.nsw.gov.au/library/eqdb/earthq.htm(February 12, 2000).

This site provides some information on the Newcastle earthquake as well as links to othersites on this topic.

[17] "Newcastle Earthquake," Emergency Management Australia,http://www.ema.gov.au/ema-eq04.htm (February 12, 2000).

This site has some detailed information on the Newcastle earthquake.

[18] "Earthquake with 1,000 or More Deaths from 1900," United States Geologic Survey,http://earthquake.usgs.gov/neis/eqlists/eqsmajr.html (March 18, 2000).

This site provides some brief statistics on earthquakes withjarge death tolls.

[19] The Agadir, Morocco Earthquake. New York, NY: The American Iron and SteelInstitute, 1962.

This source is a detailed report on the Agadir earthquake. It contains information on thequake's seismological aspects and structural impacts. It also contains some general informationon earthquake theory.

[20] Ambrose, J. and Vergun, D., Design for Earthquakes, New York, NY: Wiley, 1999.

Described the importance of the seismic restraint of mechanical and electrical systems.

[21] Nonstructural Issues of Seismic Design and Construction, Berkeley, CA: EarthquakeEngineering Research Institute, 1984.

Provided illustrations of earthquake damage to mechanical and electrical systems and a chartof the hazards posed by not seismically restraining mechanical and electrical equipment.

[22] B. Hansuld, Seismic Restraint Survey: Inspectors and City Officials, Denver/Front Range,February/March 2000.

Helpful in obtaining local opinions of inspectors and plans examiners.

[23] "History and Background," About the California Seismic Safety Commission,http://www.seismic.ca.gov/sscabout.htm (2/20/00).

Gave a very good history of the CSSC.

[24] "Utah's Earthquake Threat," www.seis.utah.edu/HTML/UQ3, April 13, 2000.

22

Provided information on future earthquake damage in Utah.

[25] Olshansky, Robert B., "Promoting the Adoption and Enforcement of Seismic BuildingCodes", FEMA 313, January 1998.

Helped with our recommendations.

[26] Colorado Earthquake Project: Office of Emergency Management. "The State ofColorado Five-Year Earthquake and Related Hazards Plan." August 1999.

Provided a table that summarized and compared the Richter and Mercalli intensity scales.

[27] "EQIIS Query Form," Steinbrugge Collection, Earthquake Engineering ResearchCenter, University of California, Berkeley, http://www.eerc.berkeley.edu/eqiis.html(February 13, 2000).

This photo database has over 10,000 photographs of earthquake damage. To access thephotos of damages caused by a specific earthquake enter the name of the earthquake on the queryform.

Works Examined, but not Cited

"Colorado Earthquake Information." Colorado Geological Survey.http://www.dnr.state.co.us/geosurvey/pubs/equake/Eqfactsheet.htm

This web site has of information about the earthquakes in Colorado. It also has contacts andlists of other sources to find out more information.

"Earthquake History of Colorado." United States Geological Survey.

This report is just the history of earthquakes in Colorado.

Nuttli, Otto W. Earthquake Information Bulletin, Volume 6, Number 2, March -April 1974. http://wwwneic.cr.usgs.gov/neis/states/missouri/181 l.html

A very useful source of information about the Missouri earthquakes in 1811 and 1812.

Special Publication 19: Colorado Tectonics. Seismicity and Earthquake Hazards. Ed.by W. Rahe Junge. Colorado Geological Survey; Department of NaturalResources. 1981.

This had some good selections about the history, but some of them were to technical in termsof geology.

Special Publication 28: Contributions to Colorado Seismicitv and Tectonics- A 1986

23

Update. Eds. William Rogers and Robert Kirkham. Colorado Geological Survey.1986.

This had good information, but too technical in terms of geology.

"Find a Map," MapQuest, http://www.mapquest.com (March 17, 2000)

This site has maps of most North American cities, as well as many majorinternational cities.

J. A. Boore, G. Earle, and L. Apetkar, Psychological Effects of Disaster on Childrenand Their Families: Hurricane Hugo and the Loma Prieta Earthquake. Boulder, CO:Natural Hazards Research and Applications Information Center, 1990.

This report compares the psychological trauma experienced by those in a hurricane withthose in an earthquake. It has good information on the trauma to children.

The Economic Consequences of a Catastrophic Earthquake: Proceeding of a ForumAugust 1 and 2,1990. Washington, DC: National Academy Press, 1992.

This source mainly covers methods of estimating earthquake losses.

W. J. Petak and A. A. Atkisson, Natural Hazard Risk Assessment and Public Policy:Anticipating the Unexpected. New York, New York: Springer-Veralag, 1982.

This reference contains material on a variety of natural disasters. It covers risk assessmentfor the United States as well as analyzing methods of risk reduction. This source has a largeamount of detailed information and figures, although the dollar figures may be slightly dated.

D. J. Alesch and W. J. Petak, The Politics and Economics of Earthquake and Hazard Mitigation,University of Colorado Institute of Behavioral Science, 1986.

R. M. Kirkham and W. P. Rogers, Earthquake Potential in Colorado: A Preliminary Evaluation,Colorado Geological Survey Department of Natural Resources, Denver, CO, 1981.

T. E. Drabek and A. H. Mushkatel and T. S. Kilijanek, Earthquake Mitigation Policy: TheExperience of Two States, University of Colorado Institute of Behavioral Science, 1983.

S. A. Marston, A Political Economy Approach to Hazards: A Case Study of California Lendersand the Earthquake Threat, Working Paper #49, University of Colorado Department ofGeography, February 1984.

Seismic Considerations for Communities at Risk, Developed by the Building Seismic SafetyCouncil for the Federal Emergency Management Agency, Washington D.C., 1995,Issued by FEMA in furtherance of the Decade for Natural Disaster Reduction.of the Decadefor Natural Disaster Reduction.

24

Natural Hazards Observer, Volume XXIV Number 2, November 1999.

Bowker, Mike, P.E. Mechanical Engineer, Planning and Construction, Plant Facilities, ColoradoSchool of Mines, Golden, CO. Personal interview and electronic correspondence, 2-8-00 and2-9-00.

Provided both the insight of the Colorado School of Mines and of a mechanical engineerregarding seismic restraint.

Griffin, Dane. Facilities Engineer, Corporate Express, Broomfield, CO. Personal interview, 2-22-00.

Provided the insight of a building owner, but was not too familiar with building codes orseismic restraint.

Wadsworth, Mike. Facility Manager, Hewlett-Packard Sales & Support Office, Englewood, CO.Telephone interview.

Provided the insight of a building owner from a high technology company.

Mescall, Matt. Industrial Engineer, IBM Corporation, Boulder, CO. Telephone interview.

Provided the insight of a building owner from a high technology company.

Finnerty, Bob. Operation Supervisor, Johnson Controls. Telephone interview.

Provided the insight of a building owner from a high technology company, SunMicrosystems, whose Broomfield facility is managed by Johnson Controls. Was more helpfulthan the other industrial sources for building owners.

Havekost & Associates PC. Denver, CO. Response to a questionnaire, 2-24-00.

Provided architectural insight into the seismic restraint of mechanical and electrical systems.Delegate responsibility to engineers. Do not perceive active enforcement. Not concerned withearthquake risk.

Knudson Gloss Architects. Boulder, CO. Response to a questionnaire, 2-25-00.

Provided architectural insight into the seismic restraint of mechanical and electrical systems.Delegate responsibility to contractors. Do not know if provisions are actively enforced. Notconcerned with earthquake risk.

Kaesler Architecture, PC. Golden, CO. Response to a questionnaire, 2-24-00.

25

Provided architectural insight into seismic restraint, but are not too concerned about it sincethey focus on residential dwellings. Do not perceive active enforcement. Not concerned withearthquake risk.

Charlie, Dr. Wayne. Department of Civil Engineering, Colorado State University, Fort Collins,CO. Electronic correspondence, 2-18-00.

Provided the insight of a structural engineer. Is aware of the seismic provisions formechanical and electrical systems. Does not see active enforcement, except in Denver.

Riegel, Don. Mechanical Engineer, Director of Engineering, Vector Engineering Services. Phoneinterview, 2-24-00.

Insight of a mechanical engineer into the implementation of seismic restraint. Did not feelmuch restraint was required in Colorado. Noted problem with implementation of seismicprovisions due to delegation among engineers and contractors. __

Jackson, Rob, P.E. Acting Director, Design and Construction Management, City of Denver.Personal interview, 3-9-00.

Provided the insight of both an engineer and a code official. Described his experience as anengineer in the petroleum industry.

"Government Code Section 8871-8871.5," CA Codes, http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/display...on=gov&group=08001-09000&file=8871-8871.5 (2/20/00).

Written is legislative jargon which is difficult to understand in parts, but gave a good outlineof what the C§SC was intended to do.

"Legislation," Seismic Safety Commission-Legislation, http://www.seismic.ca.gov/sscleg.htm,(2/20/00).

Explained in pretty good depth the role that the CSSC has in the legislation that is seismic-related.

"Earthquakes in Utah - how serious is the threat?" USSC Earthquake Information,http://www.ps.ex.state.ut.us/cem/ussc/earthquake.htm. (2/23/00).

Gave a very brief outline of the threat of earthquakes in Utah.

"Who's on the Commission and how do they work?" Commission Information,http://www.ps.ex.state.ut.us/cem/ussc/commission.htm, (2/23/00).

Provided a good overview of the objectives of the USSC.

26

"A Strategic Plan for Earthquake Safety in Utah," Utah Geological Survey-Fault Line Forum,http://www.ugs.state.ut.us/flfplan.htm. (2/14/00).

Very good article, gave a brief overview of the Strategic Plan for Earthquake Safety in Utah.

"The Utah Seismic Safety Commission-what is it?" Utah Seismic Safety Commission Home,http://www.ps.ex.state.ut.us/cem/ussc/default.html. (2/23/00).

Did not use in report-gave a very brief explanation of USSC.

"California Earthquake Loss Reduction Plan, 1997-2001," California Seismic SafetyCommission, http://www.seismic.ca.gov/sscatr.htm. (2/20/00).

Did not use in report-gave a good overview of the California Earthquake Loss ReductionPlan.

"Rule R156-56. Utah Uniform Building Standard Act Rules," Utah Administrative Code RuleR156-56, http://www.rules.state.ut.us/publicat/code/rl56/rl56-56.htm. (2/16/00).

Did not use in report-the actual code for Utah building code, but very difficult to read inparts.

27

Appendix A: Magnitude (Richter Scale) and Intensity (Modified Mercalli Scale)

The magnitude or Richter Scale (R) of an earthquake is a measure of the amplitude ofthe seismic waves and is related to the amount of energy released; this energy can beestimated from seismograph recordings. The magnitude scale is logarithmic, meaning amagnitude 7.2 earthquake produces 10 times more ground motion than a magnitude 6.2earthquake. In terms of energy, however, it releases about 32 times more energy. Theenergy release best indicates the destructive power of an earthquake.

The Modified Mercalli Scale (M) measures intensity rather than magnitude. It measuresthe effects of an earthquake at a particular place on humans, as well as structures. Theintensity at a point depends not only upon the strength of the earthquake (magnitude), butalso upon the distance from the earthquake to the epicenter and the local geology at thatpoint. The following table depicts a rough comparison of the two scales.

ScalesR M2-

3-

4-

5-

6-

7-

8-

II

III

IV

V

VI

VII

VIII

IX

X

XIXII

Description of Earthquake

The majority of people do not feel the earthquake. Must have extremely favorableconditions for motion to be detected.Felt only by a few persons at rest, especially on upper floors of buildings. Delicatelysuspended objects may swing.Felt by persons on upper floors of buildings. Standing motor cars may rock slightly.Vibration similar to the passing of a truck. Duration estimated.Felt outdoors by a few; at night, some awakened. Dishes, windows, and doorsdisturbed. Cars rocked noticeably.Felt by nearly everyone; many awakened. Some dishes, windows broken. Unstableobjects overturned. Pendulum clocks may stop.Felt by all, many frightened. Some heavy furniture moved. A few instances of fallenplaster. Damage slight.Negligible damage in well constructed buildings; slight to moderate in ordinarystructures. Considerable damage in poorly built structures.Damage slight in specially designed structures; damage great in poorly built structures.Heavy furniture overturned; chimneys and walls may fall.Damage considerable in specially designed structures. Damage great in substantialbuildings, with partial collapse. Buildings shifted off foundations.Some well-built wooden structures destroyed; most masonry and frame structuresdestroyed. Rails bent.Few, if any masonry structures remain standing. Bridges destroyed. Rails bent greatlyDamage total. Line of sight distorted. Objects thrown into the air.

Source: Colorado Earthquake Project: Office of Emergency Management. The State Of ColoradoFive-Year Earthquake and Related Hazards Plan. August 1999 [26].

28

Appendix B: Summary of Mechanical and Electrical Equipment Hazards

The following table provides a summary of hazards posed by various pieces of mechanical andelectrical equipment, as well as who is responsible for implementation of their seismic restraint.It should help reveal the importance of implementing seismic restraint for mechanical andelectrical systems.

NONSTRUCTURAL COMPONENTS & ISSUES

ISSUE

CO'MPONENT

FUNC-LIFE ECON T1ON STRUCT.

HAZARD LOSS LOSS MODIF.

DESIGN &SELECTIONRESPONS-

IBILITY*

MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT

SOURCE Boilers„ Chillers, Air Handlers

Tanks • - ,. Heat Exchangers "Pressure Vessels

_-.. Pumps * - ". . Flues, Vents

O0OO0OO0

ccOOOOOO

OOc .O0OO0

OO

• *O 'O -O <OOO

MEME 'MEMEMEMEME

- ME

.Roof Top* Packages MEHeat Pumps O ME-Wlndow Units- O ME

DISTRI-BUTION

DuctsPipes, WaterPipes, Steam

OO

MEMEME

TERMINALS Celling D Iff usersFloor, Wall DiffusersHeaters, Oil O

ME'ME

ELECTRICAL EQUIPMENTSOURCE Transformers

Switch GearMotors. Controls

O

O

MEMEME

DISTRI-BUTION

ConduitBusbars, Wireways

O MEME

TERMINALS OutletsLighting

O- O

MEME

• potentially greatf) potentially moderateO potentially small

*A - architect '.- . '.-• '".:E "=•*" structural engineer

ME •• mech/elac. engineerI - Interior architect " "

O - owner/manager

Source: Nonstmctural Issues of Seismic Design and Construction, Berkeley, CA: EarthquakeEngineering Research Institute, 1984, p. 10 [21].

29

Appendix C: Earthquake Property Damage

This appendix contains photographs of property damage caused by the four earthquakesthat were presented in detail in the body of the report. These photographs serve tographically illustrate the damage that moderate earthquakes can inflict.

Daly City, California Earthquake

Pilaster damage in PremiumProducts Building in San

Francisco [27].

Collapsed footbridge at the Municipal Golf Coursein San Francisco [27].

Failure of ceramic veneer on the SanFrancisco City College Science Building [27].

Overturned gravestone at the EternalHome Cemetery in Coma [27].

30

Whittier Narrows, California Earthquake

Car crushed by falling brick [27].

Chimney that has fallen through roof [27].

Column failure in May Companyparking garage [27].

Interior roof failure in May Company parkinggarage [27].

31

Newcastle, Australia Earthquake

Collapsed Newcastle Workers Club. Site of ninedeaths and many injuries [16].

Damaged Hidden Treasure Section of the Kent Hotel. Street had to be rebuilt [16].Hotel [16].

Damaged George Hotel had to be demolished [16].

32

Agadir, Morocco Earthquake

Immeuble Consulaire office and apartment building before theearthquake. Constructed with a reinforced concrete frame [19:39.].

Immeuble Consulaire after the earthquake. The picture on the right showsstacks of floor slabs [19:39].

Saada Hotel before the earthquake. Constructed with a reinforced concrete frame [19:40].

Sadda Hotel after the earthquake [19:40].

33