B E N E F I T - C O S T

A N A L Y S I S

T O O L K I T

GUIDANCE FOR EARTHQUAKE MITIGATION PROJECTS

Prepared for The Federal Emergency Management Agency 500 C Street, SW Washington, DC 20472

June 2006

URS Group, Inc. 200 Orchard Ridge Drive, Suite 101 Gaithersburg, Maryland 20878 URS Project No. 15702304.00100

Guidance for Earthquake Mitigation Projects TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Earthquake Hazard ......................................................................................................................... 1 Measuring Earthquake Severity .................................................................................................... 1 Components of Seismic Risk ........................................................................................................ 2 Available Seismic Hazard Data...................................................................................................... 3 Considerations for a Seismic BCA................................................................................................ 3 5.1 5.2 5.3 5.4 5.5 6. 7. 8. Seismic Hazard Data................................................................................................3 Building or Other Facility Characteristics ...............................................................6 Function ...................................................................................................................7 Occupancy and Life Safety Values..........................................................................8 Economic Value.......................................................................................................8

Seismic Mitigation Projects ........................................................................................................... 8 BCA Basics for Seismic Mitigation Projects ................................................................................ 9 Seismic Modules ............................................................................................................................ 9 8.1 8.2 8.3 Earthquake Full Data Module................................................................................10 Earthquake Limited Data Module..........................................................................10 Earthquake Non-Structural Module.......................................................................10

9.

BCAs of Seismic Mitigation Projects: Standardized Approach................................................ 10 9.1 9.2 Level One Analysis................................................................................................10 Level Two Analysis ...............................................................................................14

10.

Evaluating Seismic Mitigation Projects ...................................................................................... 15 10.1 10.2 10.3 Step 1: Determine the Level of Seismic Hazard....................................................16 Step 2: Identify High-Risk Buildings or Other Facilities for Seismic Mitigation...............................................................................................................17 Step 3: Determining the Best Mitigation Projects for Buildings ...........................18 10.3.1 Structural Retrofits.....................................................................................18 10.3.2 Non-Structural Retrofits.............................................................................18 10.3.3 Non-Structural Retrofits: Life-Safety ........................................................18 10.3.4 Non-Structural Retrofits: Preserving the Function of Critical Facilities.....................................................................................................19 10.3.5 Non-Structural Retrofits: Protecting Valuable Contents ...........................20
\30-MAY-06\\

Guidance for Earthquake Mitigation Projects

Tables Table 1: Example of Annual Probabilities of Earthquake Ground Motions................................... 2 Table 2: Suggested Seismic Mitigation Approaches vs. Seismic Hazard Level ............................ 6 Table 3: Vulnerable Building Types............................................................................................... 7 Table 4: Generalized Examples of Non-Structural Seismic Hazard Mitigation Projects............. 20

Figures Figure 1: Seismic Hazards Eastern and Central United States .................................................... 4 Figure 2: Seismic Hazards Western and Central United States................................................... 5 Figure 3: Whole Building Occupancy Calculation Example and Life Safety Values.................... 8 Figure 4: Building Type Wizard ................................................................................................... 11 Figure 5: Building Seismic Design Level, Before-Mitigation Table............................................ 11 Figure 6: Using the SDF Wizard to reduce Loss of Function days .............................................. 12 Figure 7: Seismic Hazard Wizard ................................................................................................. 13 Figure 8: Seismic Hazard Data Lookup for Zip Code 29403 (Charleston, SC) ........................... 13 Figure 9: Building SDF Wizard Entering User-Defined Values ............................................... 14 Figure 10: Fragility Curve Adjustment using the SDF Wizard .................................................... 14

\30-MAY-06\\

ii

Guidance for Earthquake Mitigation Projects

1.

EARTHQUAKE HAZARD

Earthquakes are vibratory ground motions in the Earths rocky crust (upper 10 to 100 miles of solid rock that floats on the heavier, ductile mantle) caused by a release of energy. This energy is usually generated by the sudden movement along a fracture in the crust called a fault. A fault is a fracture across which blocks of rock have been displaced relative to one another. Earthquake damage occurs as a direct result of ground motions and the resulting forces on buildings and other structures. However, earthquake damage also occurs because of secondary effects, such as: settlement, lateral movement, or liquefaction of soils; landslides; tsunamis; fire following earthquake; hazardous materials (HAZMAT) incidents; and inundation (dam or levee failures). Such secondary effects may exacerbate damage levels and should be considered during the evaluation of existing facilities, the design of mitigation projects, and the BCAs. Most earthquakes occur as a result of plate tectonicsthe movement of plates of rocks that comprise the Earths crust. Most earthquakes occur at the boundaries between plates (such as on the San Andreas Fault in California), but some earthquakes occur at zones of weakness and/or high stress in the middle of plates (such as the New Madrid Fault zone in the central United States). Earthquake size is measured by magnitude (M), which is a measure of the amount of energy released by the earthquake. Small earthquakes (<M6) are only felt locally and generally cause little or no damage. Moderate earthquakes (M6) are felt over larger areas and may cause local damage. Large or very large earthquakes (M7 or M8) cause increasing levels of damage and are felt over larger areas. Most earthquake damage is due to ground shaking, one parameter of which is peak ground acceleration (PGA). To determine the BCA of a seismic mitigation project, damages and losses are estimated as a function of PGA categories, similar to the way damages and losses for floods are estimated in categories of flood depth. The level of ground shaking at a given location during an earthquake depends on: Magnitude of the earthquake Distance from the epicenter (the point on the earths surface below which the earthquake started) Soil and rock characteristics at the site Depth to groundwater Duration of the shaking

Additional information about earthquakes is available in the user guide of the Earthquake FD Module and the Non-Structural Earthquake Guidance Manual.

2.

MEASURING EARTHQUAKE SEVERITY

The severity of earthquake ground motions for BCAs is measured by peak ground acceleration (PGA), which is a measure of the acceleration of the ground surface (horizontally, vertically, or both) relative to the acceleration of gravity (g). National seismic hazard data can be obtained
\30-MAY-06\\

Guidance for Earthquake Mitigation Projects

from the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) or from site-specific probabilistic seismic hazard assessments. These data are then used to determine the annual probabilities of earthquake ground motions in PGA for seven categories ranging from 4% g to >100% g. An example of this seismic hazard data is provided in Table 1. The probability of occurrence of small earthquakes is greater than the probability of occurrence of large earthquakes. Table 1: Example of Annual Probabilities of Earthquake Ground Motions
Annual Probability of Earthquake Ground Motions

PGA (% of g) 4-8 8-16 16-32 32-55 55-80 80-100 >100

Calculated Hazard Data Scientific Decimal

3.867E-02 1.794E-02 1.294E-03 4.873E-04 2.783E-04 1.330E-04 2.320E-04 0.03867042 0.01794382 0.00129363 0.00048731 0.00027827 0.00013305 0.00023200

3.

COMPONENTS OF SEISMIC RISK

In general, the term risk means the threat to the built environment and people. The main components of earthquake risks include: Casualties (deaths and injuries) Physical damage to buildings and contents Physical damage to infrastructure Loss of function (economic impacts)

Earthquakes cause physical damage to buildings, contents, and infrastructure and often result in casualties. Although physical damage and casualties may be severe, it is important to recognize that earthquakes may cause significant economic impacts on affected communities when damage results in the loss of function of buildings and infrastructure. The economic impact of a loss of function may be comparable to the economic impact of physical damage, or in some cases, even greater. Examples of economic impacts arising from earthquake damage include the following: 1. Displacement costs. Displacement costs refer to the costs of temporary quarters when occupants (residential, commercial, or public buildings) are displaced to temporary quarters while damage is repaired. Displacement costs include rent, other monthly costs of displacement such as furniture rentals and other extra costs, and one-time costs such as moving expenses and utility hookup fees. 2. Loss of public services. Loss of public services is valued at the cost of providing service plus a continuity premium for services that are critical to the immediate disaster response and recovery. Detailed guidance on how to value the benefits of avoiding loss of public
\30-MAY-06\\

Guidance for Earthquake Mitigation Projects

services is provided in the FEMA What is a Benefit? guidance document. This guidance includes continuity premiums and functional downtimes for police, fire, and medical facilities, as well as guidance on how to value loss of services for Emergency Operation Centers (EOCs) and emergency shelters. 3. Business and rental income losses. 4. Economic impacts of loss of transportation and utility services. What is a Benefit? includes guidance on how to value the economic impacts of traffic delays or detours from road and bridge closures and how to value the economic impacts of loss of electric power, potable water, and wastewater services.

4.

AVAILABLE SEISMIC HAZARD DATA

1. Seismic hazard data are available in the Earthquake FD Module, Version 6.0.0 (or later). The module allows the user to directly obtain and utilize USGS seismic hazard data by zip code and by latitude/longitude for the lower 48 states. 2. Current and accurate USGS seismic hazard data are available on the USGS website by zip code and latitude/longitude at: http://eqhazmaps.usgs.gov/. 3. For some local areas, local seismic hazard or engineering studies may also contain sitespecific information. 4. An analyst can use the results of a site-specific probabilistic seismic hazard analysis conducted by a certified professional.

5.

CONSIDERATIONS FOR A SEISMIC BCA

1. Seismic hazard data. 2. Building (or other facility) seismic vulnerability characteristics. 3. A variety of data necessary to estimate the economic impacts of future earthquake damage.

There are three groups of essential information for a seismic BCA:

5.1

Seismic Hazard Data

The seismic hazard level (i.e., the probability and severity of earthquakes) varies markedly across the United States. Figures 1 and 2 show seismic hazard data from the USGS for the eastern and western portions of the United States.

\30-MAY-06\\

Guidance for Earthquake Mitigation Projects

Figure 1: Seismic Hazards Eastern and Central United States

\30-MAY-06\\

Guidance for Earthquake Mitigation Projects

Figure 2: Seismic Hazards Western and Central United States For any community considering seismic mitigation projects, determining the PGA for the area is essential in determining the extent to which the community should consider implementing a seismic hazard mitigation project. Suggestions for interpreting and responding to the seismic hazard level (map color) are provided in Table 2. A community may want to consider contacting the State Emergency Management Office to talk with the State Earthquake Program Manager or the State Hazard Mitigation Officer to determine if a more site-specific hazard map is available.

\30-MAY-06\\

Guidance for Earthquake Mitigation Projects

Table 2: Suggested Seismic Mitigation Approaches vs. Seismic Hazard Level
Community Map Color Red Red Orange Light Orange Seismic Hazard Level High Moderately High Moderate Suggested Community Seismic Hazard Mitigation Program Extensive program Substantial program Consider selected mitigation measures only for highly critical and highly vulnerable facilities Consider selected mitigation measures only for facilities that are both very critical and very vulnerable Consider selected mitigation measures only for facilities that are both exceptionally critical and exceptionally vulnerable Seismic risk probably not significant Seismic risk negligible Comment on Likely Cost-Effective Seismic Mitigation Projects Many well designed projects, but not all projects Quite a few well designed projects A few very well designed mitigation projects

Yellow

Moderately Low

Only very few, very carefully selected projects

Green

Low

Mitigation projects will rarely be cost-effective except in extremely exceptional circumstances Mitigation probably not required in most cases Mitigation not required

Blue Gray

Very Low Negligible

The approximate level of seismic hazard for any mitigation project location can be determined from Figures 1 and 2. However, a quantitative determination of the seismic hazard level is necessary for BCAs. Further technical details about seismic hazard data are provided in Section 9, BCAs of Seismic Mitigation Projects: Standardized Approach. There are two additional considerations when evaluating the seismic hazard at a project location. First, the level of seismic hazard (i.e., the probability and severity of earthquake ground motions) depends not only on geographic location, but also on site geologic conditions. Therefore, determining local soil/rock conditions is an essential step in evaluating seismic hazard levels at a project location. Second, some sites are subject to secondary effects of earthquakes, which must be considered for a complete hazard analysis. Secondary effects include soil effects (liquefaction, settlement, lateral spreading), landslides, tsunamis, fire following earthquake, HAZMAT incidents, and flood inundation due to dam breach or levee failure. Further technical details about evaluating such secondary effects are also provided in Section 9.

5.2

Building or Other Facility Characteristics

The seismic vulnerability (i.e., the potential for damage at each PGA level) of buildings and other facilities varies markedly from facility to facility, depending on the specific engineering design and condition of each structure or facility. Therefore, an essential part of a seismic BCA is to estimate appropriate seismic damage functions for each structure or facility under evaluation. Table 3 lists several common building types that are often highly vulnerable to earthquake damage.
\30-MAY-06\\

Guidance for Earthquake Mitigation Projects

Table 3: Vulnerable Building Types
Building Type Unreinforced masonry (URM) Seismic Design Deficiencies More than two stories One or two stories with week roof/wall connections or with soft first story Comments Small one or two story unreinforced masonry buildings with good roof/wall connections and good condition walls without too many openings may perform relatively well in moderate earthquakes Other types of wood frame structures generally perform well in earthquakes

Wood frame

Precast concrete structures Tilt-up concrete structures Concrete frame structures without concrete shear walls

Sill plate not bolted to foundation Cripple wall or unbraced post foundations Weak connections Poor roof/wall connections

Note:

Tall, thin columns without adequate reinforcing Soft first stories The above table provides general guidance only. The actual seismic vulnerability of a building depends on many factors than can be evaluated only by a structural engineer thoroughly familiar with seismic design and performance evaluations.

Many such structures will perform poorly in earthquakes With good roof/wall connections, structures generally perform fairly well Concrete frame structures designed to seismic standards generally perform well

5.3

Function

Some buildings are more important to a community than others because some functions are more important than others. Buildings that provide critical services for the community, such as hospitals and other medical facilities, police and fire stations, 911 call centers, and EOCs, are more important than buildings that provide ordinary services. Ordinary services are those services or functions that could be interrupted without resulting in significant life-safety or economic impacts on the community. Critical services are often defined as those that directly affect life-safety or those services whose loss would have a large economic impact on the community. For example, loss of electric power or potable water would have a large economic impact on a community (and potential health effects as well). Therefore, such essential utility services are often regarded as critical lifeline services. Because of the large economic impact of loss of such services, non-structural retrofits for critical elements of utility systems may warrant a high priority (see Section 6, Seismic Mitigation Projects). Many communities also consider schools to be critical buildings because they are used for emergency shelters, or simply because a high priority is placed on protecting children. Some communities also consider important historical buildings to be critical because of their historical, cultural, or economic importance.

\30-MAY-06\\

Guidance for Earthquake Mitigation Projects 5.4 Occupancy and Life Safety Values

Higher occupancy buildings generally have a greater potential for casualties from future earthquakes. Therefore, for earthquake projects with a primary objective of improving lifesafety, high priority is generally placed on high occupancy buildings. Figure 3 shows an example of occupancy data and the standard life safety values (for 2006) in the Earthquake FD Module. To calculate the current life safety values, use the Inflation Calculator (located in the BCA Tools main folder) to inflate values from the 2001 values listed in Section 2.3 of What is a Benefit? ($2,710,000 for death, $15,600 for major injury, and $1,560 for minor injury) to the current year. The analyst should provide documentation that supports the average occupancy data entered into the module.

Figure 3: Whole Building Occupancy Calculation Example and Life Safety Values

5.5

Economic Value

The value of buildings or contents protected by seismic hazard mitigation projects is important because mitigation projects that protect high economic values are generally more cost-effective than mitigation projects that protect low values.

6.

SEISMIC MITIGATION PROJECTS

Seismic mitigation projects are commonly classified as structural or non-structural mitigation projects. Structural seismic mitigation projects address the structural elements of a building. Structural elements are the main building elements that support the building, including foundations, loadbearing walls, beams, columns, floors, and roof structures. For other facilities, structural projects address the structural elements of bridges, dams, utility systems, and other infrastructure. Non-structural seismic mitigation projects address non-structural building elements. Nonstructural building elements include everything that does not support the building, including architectural elements such as partitions, ceilings, and parapets; electrical, mechanical, and plumbing systems; building furnishings; equipment; and other contents.
\30-MAY-06\\

Guidance for Earthquake Mitigation Projects

Further details on structural and non-structural mitigation projects can be found in the Users Manual of the Earthquake FD Module and the Non-Structural Earthquake Mitigation Guidance Manual.

7.

BCA BASICS FOR SEISMIC MITIGATION PROJECTS

BCAs for seismic mitigation projects are generally similar to the BCA approach for more common mitigation projects (e.g., flood mitigation projects) and the same general concepts and principles apply. The four-step process that applies to any hazard mitigation project also applies to seismic mitigation projects: 1. Determine the seismic hazard for the project location (i.e., the frequency or probability and severity of earthquakes) 2. Estimate damage and losses before-mitigation 3. Estimate damage and losses after-mitigation 4. Calculate benefits taking into account the useful lifetime of the mitigation project and the discount rate (7%). However, BCAs for seismic mitigation projects include several important earthquake-specific differences: 1. The design, evaluation, and BCA of every seismic hazard mitigation project require specialized seismic engineering knowledge. Close consultation with a structural engineer experienced in evaluating seismic mitigation projects is strongly encouraged. 2. The level of seismic hazard at a given site depends not only on location (i.e., latitude and longitude) with respect to earthquake sources, but also on the site geology. Accurate BCAs of seismic mitigation projects require data on local soil/rock conditions to account for the potential amplification of ground motion by certain soils. 3. The seismic vulnerability of existing buildings, non-structural building elements, contents, and infrastructure, and the effectiveness of seismic mitigation projects, vary from facility to facility. Accurate determination of appropriate seismic damage functions both before and after mitigation requires seismic engineering expertise. 4. BCAs of all seismic mitigation projects should include an evaluation of life-safety benefits. Life-safety (avoided casualties) is often the driving force behind seismic projects and the benefits of reduced casualties are often among the largest categories of benefits.

8.

SEISMIC MODULES

Three modules are available for seismic mitigation project BCAs, each with various functions. These are Excel-based modules for BCA evaluations: BCA Earthquake Full Data Module (FD Module) BCA Earthquake Limited Data Module (LD Module) BCA Earthquake Non-Structural Module
\30-MAY-06\\

Guidance for Earthquake Mitigation Projects 8.1 Earthquake Full Data Module

The BCA Earthquake FD Module is a general-purpose BCA module, although the built-in seismic damage functions are applicable only to structural seismic mitigation projects for buildings. The module incorporates the determination of seismic hazard using the 1996 USGS 3point hazard curves and automatically adjusts the ground motion for the soil type present at the site. The Earthquake FD Module incorporates the FEMA HAZUS fragility curves.

8.2

Earthquake Limited Data Module

The BCA Earthquake LD Module has no built-in damage functions and is intended only for experienced users capable of independently determining appropriate damage functions. Furthermore, the seismic hazard data input format was designed specifically for use in California.

8.3

Earthquake Non-Structural Module

The Non-Structural Module contains data for non-structural mitigation projects based on detailed seismic vulnerability information (fragility curves) in a format necessary for analyzing nonstructural seismic mitigation projects. Analysts should obtain the seismic hazard data for the site by running the Earthquake FD Module and then transferring the probability of occurrence values to the Non-Structural Module.

9.

BCAS OF SEISMIC MITIGATION PROJECTS: STANDARDIZED APPROACH

The following section outlines a standardized approach for seismic hazard mitigation project BCAs that is recommended for all projects. The Earthquake FD Module evaluates mitigation projects using one of two approaches: Level One analysis or Level Two analysis. A Level One analysis is appropriate for most users; the results are based on default values for the various seismic damage functions. A Level Two analysis is appropriate for experienced users in consultation with a structural engineer to modify the default seismic damage function values.

9.1

Level One Analysis

Completion of a Level One BCA requires entering the following information into the Earthquake FD (Structural) Module. 1. Project Information: Enter the appropriate descriptive information about the project. Click on the Next button to advance to the next Level One screen. 2. Building Type: Click on the Wizard button to open the Building Type table as shown in Figure 4. Select the applicable building type code. The module will automatically fill in the (green) Building Type Code and the (purple) Type Description cells.

\30-MAY-06\\

10

Guidance for Earthquake Mitigation Projects

Figure 4: Building Type Wizard 3. Building Seismic Design Level: The before-mitigation and after-mitigation Building Seismic Design Levels, for the building type selected in #2 above, are selected by using the Wizard function. Click on the Before-Mitigation Wizard button to open the Building Seismic Design Level table as shown in Figure 5. After picking the appropriate code (i.e., pre-, low-, moderate-, or high-code) click on the Save button and follow the same procedure to select and save the after-mitigation seismic design level.

Figure 5: Building Seismic Design Level, Before-Mitigation Table 4. Building Data, Contents Data, and Displacement Costs: There are two data entry screens for entering the building and contents data and the displacement costs in a format similar to the other FD modules. 5. Building Occupancy and Value of Avoiding Casualties (Life Safety Values): Enter the occupancy values and update the injury and death values on this screen. Refer to Figure 3 and the discussion in Section 5.4, Occupancy and Life Safety Values.
\30-MAY-06\\

11

Guidance for Earthquake Mitigation Projects

6. Value of Public / Nonprofit Services, Rent and Business Income: The value of public / nonprofit services is based on the annual budget value entered. Use the rent wizard to indicate whether rent is included in the annual budget, or to add a user-entered rent value or accept the default (proxy) rent value derived from the total building value. The continuity premium value is generally a whole number multiplier (from 1 to 10) applied to the cost of providing services from this building ($/day) value. The FEMA What is a Benefit? document provides guidance on the use of the continuity premium for loss of essential services (See Section 2 above). Note: If a 10x continuity premium is selected, the Loss of Function (days) must be reduced to one-third the default value (1/3x). Use the Level Two Data Loss of Function SDF (Seismic Damage Function) Wizard to enter the reduced values in the User Calculation (days) column for both before- and after-mitigation (refer to Figure 6). Entering data in the userdefined cells will change the cell color to light blue. Note: If only a portion of the building is used for emergency services, the value of the continuity premium would be calculated by using the percentage of the total building area occupied by the emergency service provider.

Figure 6: Using the SDF Wizard to reduce Loss of Function days 7. Mitigation Project Data: This is the page to enter the data used to calculate the Total Mitigation Project Cost. The Project Useful Life (years) is entered on this page (refer to the FEMA BCA Checklist for acceptable Project Useful Life values). 8. Seismic Hazard Data: The last Level One Data page includes the Seismic Hazard Wizard which allows analysts to: (1) look up the USGS (3-point) seismic hazard data by latitude / longitude or zip code (refer to Figure 7); (2) adjust the seismic hazard data for site soil/rock conditions (refer to Figure 8); or (3) enter user-defined site-specific seismic hazard data.

\30-MAY-06\\

12

Guidance for Earthquake Mitigation Projects

Note: There have been reports by some users that selecting Soil Type E generates an error message and the module may not complete the seismic hazard calculations, or it returns anomalous annual probability values (very large negative numbers) and negative benefit values. For this case, analysts can try the latitude / longitude lookup (if zip code lookup generated the error), select the user entry of site-specific hazard data option, or rerun the seismic hazard wizard using Soil Type D.

Figure 7: Seismic Hazard Wizard

Figure 8: Seismic Hazard Data Lookup for Zip Code 29403 (Charleston, SC) 13

\30-MAY-06\\

Guidance for Earthquake Mitigation Projects 9.2 Level Two Analysis

1. Seismic Damage Function: The Seismic Damage Function (SDF) Wizard can be accessed from any one of the seven Level Two Data screens in the module (i.e., Building SDF, Contents SDF, Displacement SDF, Loss of Function SDF, Minor Injuries SDF, Major Injuries SDF, and Casualties SDF). Figure 9 shows the Building SDF Wizard. The SDF Wizard also allows full editing of the before- and after-mitigation fragility curves (refer to Figure 10).

Figure 9: Building SDF Wizard Entering User-Defined Values

Figure 10: Fragility Curve Adjustment using the SDF Wizard

\30-MAY-06\\

14

Guidance for Earthquake Mitigation Projects 10. EVALUATING SEISMIC MITIGATION PROJECTS

Any community considering possible seismic mitigation projects needs to answer two central questions: 1. Is the level of seismic hazard (i.e., the frequency and severity of earthquakes) high enough in a given community to warrant consideration of seismic hazard mitigation projects for some buildings or facilities? If not, a communitys mitigation efforts and resources can be better focused on other hazards that pose a more serious threat to the community. 2. If the level of seismic hazard is high enough to warrant consideration, how does a community identify the best seismic mitigation projects from the range of possible projects? The first step in evaluating the need for seismic mitigation projects is to answer the first question: What is the level of seismic hazard for the community? In many ways, answering this question goes a long way toward determining the extent to which a given community needs to evaluate seismic mitigation projects as a high priority. If the seismic hazard is high or moderately high, the community may decide to make seismic mitigation a high priority and implement a widespread mitigation program. If the seismic hazard is moderate, the community may decide to consider only a few seismic mitigation projects for facilities that are both critical to the community and especially vulnerable to seismic damage (i.e., projects with a relatively higher risk). On the other hand, if the level of seismic hazard is low or negligible, the community may decide to focus mitigation efforts on other hazards that pose a more significant threat to the community. If the level of seismic hazard is low, then few, if any, seismic mitigation projects are likely to be cost-effective. The seismic hazard level for any community can be easily and quickly determined from national maps of seismic hazard levels. Then, if the community has a high enough level of seismic hazard to warrant further consideration of seismic hazard mitigation projects, the following paragraphs provide additional guidance on how to evaluate potential projects. Figures 1 and 2 and Table 2 offer additional guidance on this preliminary evaluation of seismic hazard levels. For mitigation planning purposes and the proper evaluation of seismic hazard mitigation projects, the following three-step process is suggested to help communities identify the best possible seismic mitigation projects. Step 1: Step 2: Step 3: Determine the level of seismic hazard Determine high-risk buildings or other facilities for structural or nonstructural seismic mitigation projects Determine the best mitigation projects for the highest-risk facilities

\30-MAY-06\\

15

Guidance for Earthquake Mitigation Projects 10.1 Step 1: Determine the Level of Seismic Hazard
1A) Seismic Hazard Data by Zip Code or Latitude/Longitude
The USGS seismic hazard data for any project location in the conterminous United States can be obtained from the Earthquake FD Module. The Earthquake FD Module incorporates the seismic hazard data from the USGS National Seismic Hazard Mapping Project Home Page (http://eqhazmaps.usgs.gov/).

1B) Adjust Seismic Hazard Data for Project Site Geology (Soil/Rock) Data
The level of seismic hazard at any project location depends not only on location but also on soil/rock type. Sites with soft, loose wet soils are subjected to higher levels of ground shaking than nearby rock or firm soil sites because soft soil often amplifies earthquake ground motions. The USGS seismic hazard data are for rock sites and must be adjusted for soil sites. The adjustment of seismic hazard data is important for all soil sites, especially soft soil sites. Making these adjustments for soil sites will result in more accurate BCAs, with substantially higher calculated benefits and BCRs than for identical mitigation projects located on rock sites. For example, consider two similar buildings with identical mitigation projects: one located on a rock site and one located nearby, but on a soft soil site. In most earthquakes, ground shaking will be significantly higher on the soft soil site and therefore the damages and casualties will probably also be higher. Because of the higher level of risk on the soft soil site, the mitigation project for this site will have a substantially higher BCR than the identical project on the rock site. Adjustments for seismic hazard data to reflect soil types have been incorporated into the seismic hazard wizard in the Earthquake FD Module.

1C) Consider Possible Secondary Effects of Earthquakes

Most earthquake damage is caused by seismic ground shaking. Some sites, however, are subject to secondary effects of earthquakes that may increase damages. If present, these secondary effects must be considered in the evaluation, selection, design, and prioritization of structural and non-structural seismic mitigation effects. The most common secondary effects of earthquakes include: Soils effects such as liquefaction, settlement, and lateral spreading Landslides Tsunamis Fire following earthquake HAZMAT incidents Inundation (e.g., dam or levee failures).

For further information on these secondary effects, see the FEMA Earthquake Primer in the Guidance Manual for Non-Structural Seismic Mitigation Projects. This information is equally applicable to structural and non-structural seismic mitigation projects. If a mitigation project site is subject to these secondary effects, it is imperative that the community works closely with an experienced structural engineer during all phases of the projects design, evaluation, and BCA.
\30-MAY-06\\

16

Guidance for Earthquake Mitigation Projects 10.2 Step 2: Identify High-Risk Buildings or Other Facilities for Seismic Mitigation
To a large extent, communities set priorities for seismic mitigation projects as a matter of choice. One community may choose to focus on hospitals. Another may choose to focus on schools, while a third may focus on fire stations, 911 call centers, and EOCs. All of these choices are valid and each community can set its own priorities. However, there are several important underlying principles that distinguish the best mitigation projects from less desirable or poor mitigation projects. There are definable characteristics that make it more likely, less likely, or very unlikely that particular structural or non-structural projects will be cost-effective. Selection of high priority buildings or other facilities is often based on importance of function, occupancy (life-safety), and economic value. A more complete description of selection criteria is provided in Step 2 of the Guidance Manual for NonStructural Seismic Mitigation Projects.

2A) High Priority for Structural Mitigation Projects

A community might assign a high priority to structural mitigation projects for buildings or other facilities based on an evaluation of the above criteria and that they are also substantially vulnerable to seismic damage. The and clause is extremely important in making an evaluation. Just because a facility is important to a community (e.g., a hospital or a fire station) does not necessarily make it a high priority for seismic mitigation, unless it is also substantially vulnerable to seismic damages. Table 3 provides condensed information on types of buildings commonly vulnerable to seismic damages. More detailed information on structure types, including drawings and examples, are provided in the appendices of the Guidance Manual for Non-Structural Mitigation Projects. The actual seismic vulnerability of a building depends on many factors than can only be evaluated by a structural engineer thoroughly familiar with seismic design and performance evaluations.

2B) High Priority for Non-Structural Mitigation Projects

At first glance, the criteria for evaluating buildings appear to be the same for structural and nonstructural projects. That is, buildings (or other facilities) with important functions, high occupancy, and high value are potentially more favorable for mitigationeither structural or non-structural. However, in some cases, the criteria for high priority structural and non-structural seismic mitigation projects diverge and may even be opposite. For structural seismic mitigation projects, the most vulnerable buildings are the best candidates for mitigation. However, for non-structural mitigation projects, buildings that are highly vulnerable to structural damage may be poor candidates for non-structural mitigation. For example, a non-structural mitigation project to brace and anchor contents may make little sense if the building is so vulnerable structurally that it would probably collapse in a major earthquake. For non-structural mitigation projects, the best projects are those for important buildings that are expected to perform relatively well structurally. Buildings with poor structural performance are not good targets for non-structural mitigation unless structural mitigation is also implemented.

\30-MAY-06\\

17

Guidance for Earthquake Mitigation Projects 10.3 Step 3: Determining the Best Mitigation Projects for Buildings
The outcome of Step 2 provides a list of buildings evaluated for structural and non-structural mitigation projects.

10.3.1 Structural Retrofits

The best structural mitigation projects are those that address specifically identified seismic deficiencies and correct the deficiencies to a performance level appropriate for the locations seismic hazard level and function of the building. Structural seismic projects that attempt to bring every element of the building up to current code are rarely cost-effective, even in high seismic hazard areas, because the project costs are typically too high. In some cases, a complete upgrading of a building to current code can cost more than the cost of a new building. The best mitigation projects focus on life-safety and normally include high-occupancy buildings that have a high probability of serious damage levels (especially collapse). The higher the expected annualized casualty rate (calculated by the Earthquake FD Module), the higher the benefits of projects addressing life-safety concerns. The annualized casualty rate depends on seismic hazard, occupancy, and vulnerability of the building. For structural mitigation projects focused on reducing building damage, contents damage, and the economic impacts of loss of function, the best mitigation projects are those in which high value (buildings or contents) and high economic impact buildings have a high probability of high damage levels. The higher the value of the building, the contents, and the economic impacts, the higher the benefits of reducing these impacts. For many facilities (e.g., hospitals) the value of avoided loss of function is a major factor in the BCA process, especially when the facility has a high continuity premium. Similarly, many utility and transportation systems have a very high economic impact of loss of function and therefore are often favorable candidates for mitigation. More detailed guidance on evaluating the benefits of loss of function for critical facilities, utility systems, and transportation systems is provided in the What is a Benefit? guidance document.

10.3.2 Non-Structural Retrofits

The best non-structural mitigation projects are those that directly meet mitigation objectives such as life-safety, preserving the function of critical facilities, or protecting valuable contents.

10.3.3 Non-Structural Retrofits: Life-Safety

Almost every non-structural seismic hazard mitigation project has some degree of life-safety protection. By reducing the potential for falling building elements or contents, nearly all nonstructural projects reduce the potential for casualties to some extent. However, just because a non-structural project is labeled as life-safety mitigation does not mean it is cost-effective. Answering one key question goes a long way toward evaluating life-safety mitigation projects: If the element (building element or contents) fails in an earthquake, is there a high probability of the failure actually causing death or major injury? If the answer is yes, the project has a good chance of being cost-effective, especially in high or moderately high seismic hazard areas. If the answer is no, the project has essentially no chance
\30-MAY-06\\

18

Guidance for Earthquake Mitigation Projects

of being cost-effective, even in high hazard areas. In this case, there are almost certainly better non-structural mitigation projects to consider. Two factors need to be considered to answer this question. First, the relevant occupancy to consider is not that of the entire building, but only the occupancy in the fall area if the element fails. Second, how likely is the failure of the element to really cause death or major injury? The best life-safety non-structural projects involve situations where a highly vulnerable heavy element is likely to fall on a heavily occupied area. Examples include parapet walls or chimneys above high traffic areas, such as building entrances, and contents or equipment that is both tall and heavy and located in high occupancy areas. Mitigation projects in such situations have large benefits because they have a high potential to avoid deaths or major injuries. Another type of life-safety project that has a good chance of being cost-effective is the bracing of tanks and other containers that store particularly hazardous materials, including chlorine tanks at water treatment plants. Because failures of such tanks can cause death or serious injury or result in fires/explosions there are often high life-safety benefits to be achieved by mitigating these situations. Life-safety projects that are less cost-effective are those that protect heavy elements in low traffic or low occupancy areas, or that protect light elements in higher occupancy areas. For example, bracing a parapet wall over an area that includes only shrubbery is not going to be cost-effective because the life-safety risk being mitigated is negligible. Similarly, bracing a tall, heavy bookcase in a storage warehouse is unlikely to be cost-effective compared to bracing the same bookcase in a high occupancy classroom or library. Many non-structural projects proposed as life-safety projects may actually have only minor lifesafety benefits. Common examples include bracing of light elements that have the potential to result in minor bruises or cuts if they fail. Common examples of such projects that are highly unlikely to be cost-effective, especially in moderate seismic hazard areas, include bracing lightsuspended ceilings, bracing relatively light low-contents items (including computer monitors), and window retrofits.

10.3.4 Non-Structural Retrofits: Preserving the Function of Critical Facilities

Some non-structural mitigation projects are intended primarily to help ensure the continued function of critical facilities in future earthquakes. The evaluation process for these projects is quite similar to the discussion of life-safety projects. For projects intended to preserve the function of critical facilities, the key question is: Would failure of the item substantially affect the function of the critical facilities? If the answer is yes, there is a good chance that the project will be cost-effective in moderate or moderately high seismic hazard zones. If not, the project has little chance of being cost-effective. Examples of non-structural projects that clearly help to ensure the continued function of critical facilities are listed below: Battery racks in a 911 call center or EOC Critical medical equipment in hospitals Critical pumps for potable water systems
\30-MAY-06\\

19

Guidance for Earthquake Mitigation Projects

Critical elements for electric power systems

Non-structural mitigation projects, even for critical facilities, will probably not be cost-effective if they do not have a significant impact on continuity of service from the critical facilities. For example, bracing ordinary contents in hospitals or other critical facilities may have only minor impacts on ensuring service continuity and thus may not be cost-effective, except perhaps in very high seismic hazard areas.

10.3.5 Non-Structural Retrofits: Protecting Valuable Contents

Some non-structural mitigation projects are designed to protect valuable contents from damage. Evaluation of these projects is easy: the more valuable the contents are, the more likely the project is cost-effective. Therefore, bracing or restraining expensive or irreplaceable items in a museum, or expensive medical or scientific equipment, or any other high-value contents are much more likely to be cost-effective than bracing or restraining a $200 computer monitor or other inexpensive contents. These general principles are summarized in Table 4, which contains several examples of potentially good (possibly cost-effective) and unlikely to be good (probably not cost-effective) non-structural seismic mitigation projects. Table 4: Generalized Examples of Non-Structural Seismic Hazard Mitigation Projects
Mitigation Objectives Life-safety Potentially Good Non-Structural Project Retrofit parapet wall or chimney above main entrance to school Anchor tall, heavy bookcase in high traffic area of school Anchor chlorine tank in water treatment plant or tanks for other toxic or flammable materials at an industrial site Anchor expensive vase in city art museum Anchor/brace expensive medical equipment in hospital Anchor batteries on rack in 911 call center or EOC Anchor emergency generator at hospital or other critical facility Anchor pump in water system or brace key elements in electric power system Unlikely to be Good Non-Structural Project Retrofit parapet wall or chimney on side of school above area containing only shrubbery Anchor low, light bookcase in low traffic area of school Anchor storage bin containing non-toxic supplies in water treatment plant

Life-safety Life-safety

Damage Reduction Damage Reduction Preserve Critical Services Preserve Critical Services Preserve Critical Services

Anchor inexpensive computer monitor Anchor inexpensive shop equipment in municipal garage building Brace ordinary contents in office building Anchor welder in municipal garage building Anchor water cooler in fire station

\30-MAY-06\\

20