Users’ Guide to University
Facilities Importance Spreadsheet
(UFIS)
6-1
Users’ Guide to
University Facilities Importance Spreadsheet – Version 1.05
By David C. Weggel
Users’ Guide last modified on April 17, 2009
Spreadsheet implemented by Brian J. Zapata
The University Facilities Importance Spreadsheet (UFIS) is a highly simplified tool for prioritizing
the importance of facilities – buildings, structures, and other campus assets – on a university
campus. The aim of the UFIS is to assist the user in reducing the number of facilities that have to
be included in subsequent vulnerability and risk assessments.
General Notes
After opening the UFIS the user will see five tabs; their content is briefly described below.
1. Tab 1: This Users’ Guide.
2. Tab 2: Table 1-1, Occupancy Category of Buildings and Other Structures for Flood, Wind,
Snow, Earthquake, and Ice Loads from ASCE 7-05: Minimum Design Loads for Buildings
and Other Structures. Table 1-1 is included to assist the user in selecting (ranking) the
appropriate Facility Occupancy Category. Table 6.1 on page 6-5 represents this table.
3. Tab 3 (User input is required): This tab contains a red field (in columnar format) for
inputting the list of facilities to be evaluated by UFIS. There is also a field in which to
input the University/Campus name.
4. Tab 4 (User input is required): This tab contains a data entry form where the user may
enter custom weights for each of the eight evaluation factors. The recommended weight is
1.0 for all factors. A higher numeric weight (for example 2.0 versus 1.0) would imply a
higher importance of one factor relative to another. Weights can be any combination of
integers or decimals and must be greater than zero. These weights will be multiplied to the
facility factors on Tab 5 to arrive at the Facility Importance Rating (FIR).
5. Tab 5 (User input is required): This tab contains the main data entry form, where the
user(s) “ranks” eight “Facility Factors”. These factors are described in more detail later in
this guide. Higher numeric (rank) values assigned by the user(s) to each of the factors
always indicates a higher importance, value, significance, or dependency.
6. Tab 6: This tab contains the results – the “Facility Importance Rating” (FIR) – computed by
the UFIS. A facility can receive a FIR from 0.0 to 1.0, where 1.0 is the highest importance
rating that can be obtained and 0.0 is the lowest rating. The FIR is computed automatically
by UFIS based upon data input by the user under the Facility Factor columns located in Tab
5. In the upper left-hand corner of the page, the user is provided 3 buttons that can
automatically obtain, sort, and clear UFIS data. This page is pre-formatted to produce a
printable report for the user’s records.
Spreadsheet Inputs (Tabs 3 and 5)
1. The user inputs the “Name of University/Campus” at the top of the sheet under Tab 3. This
information is automatically transferred to the sheets of Tabs 5 and 6.
2. The user inputs the list of facilities to be evaluated in the red field on the sheet under Tab 3.
3. To supply the input data to rate a facility, the user(s) ranks each of the eight Facility Factors
under Tab 5 by entering an appropriate (integer) number in the corresponding gray box and
pressing “enter”. A text box appears to provide the user with a brief description of the factor
6-2
being ranked. If the user tries to input an inappropriate number, UFIS will not allow it,
forcing the user to “retry” the data entry. Several of the Facility Factors will be ranked in a
relative fashion; in some cases good judgment or an “educated guess” may have to be
exercised in the ranking process.
4. The user(s) inputs his/her name under each Facility Factor he/she has ranked. This field is
included since more than one person may rank a particular facility. Tracking names helps
UNC Charlotte researchers understand the perspectives of the various users.
5. Please contact UNC Charlotte researchers with suggestions to improve the UFIS.
Description of Facility Factors
1. Facility Occupancy Category Factor (from Table 1-1 in ASCE 7-05) – This categorization
is the primary driver of facility importance. Table 1-1 from ASCE 7-05 is included in the
UFIS (Tab 2) to guide the user in this ranking selection and including in this guide as Table
6.1 on page 6-5. The Facility Occupancy Category is selected based on the initial design
intent of the structure; the initial design intent could be obtained from design drawings or
from the architect or the structural engineer of record. For facilities with multiple
occupancy categories, the most stringent category (the higher number) will control. Briefly
indicate the controlling occupancy category (i.e. hospital, telecommunications center, or
minor storage facility) in the white text box below the ranking entry.
1 = Occupancy Category I
2 = Occupancy Category II
3 = Occupancy Category III
4 = Occupancy Category IV
2. Emergency Function Factor – This factor is for a facility that will have an emergencyrelated function that is not a part of its normal activities or a part of its initial design intent
(i.e. it was not designed with this emergency function in mind). Briefly indicate the
emergency-related function(s) in the white text box below the ranking entry.
0 = no post-design emergency-related function
1 = possible post-design emergency-related function
2 = low post-design emergency-related function
3 = moderate post-design emergency-related function
4 = high post-design emergency-related function (i.e. shelter for increasingly more
people in conjunction with other emergency-related functions)
The ranking values assigned to this factor may have to rely on judging the significance
and/or number of post-design emergency-related functions that could occur at the facility
under consideration relative to the functions that could occur at all other facilities on
campus. Examples of emergency-related functions are: emergency shelter,
command/control center, facilities directly associated with response/rescue/recovery
operations.
3. Facility Loss Factor – This factor represents the replacement value of the empty facility
under consideration relative to the replacement value of all other campus facilities. For
example, for a building the replacement value would include all components – structural
system, nonstructural elements, transportation system, utilities, etc. – in the empty facility.
1 = facility is valued in the lowest quartile of all campus facilities
2 = facility is valued in the second lowest quartile of all campus facilities
3 = facility is valued in the second highest quartile of all campus facilities
4 = facility is valued in the highest quartile of all campus facilities
6-3
4. Facility Contents Factor – This factor indicates the value of the facility’s contents relative
to the value of the contents of all other campus facilities; this does not include the “value”
of data or live animals, since this is accounted for in a subsequent factor. The insured value
of “building contents” could be used to assist in ranking this factor, for example.
1 = contents valued in the lowest quartile of all campus facilities
2 = contents valued in the second lowest quartile of all campus facilities
3 = contents valued in the second highest quartile of all campus facilities
4 = contents valued in the highest quartile of all campus facilities
5. Business Continuity Factor – This factor indicates the effect a particular facility would
have on the continuity of university business operations if it were destroyed or significantly
damaged. Briefly describe the effect that loss of this facility would have on university
business operations in the white text box below the ranking entry.
0 = no effect
1 = possible effect
2 = low effect
3 = moderate
4 = high effect
6. Interconnectivity/Dependency Factor – This factor considers the influence the facility
under consideration has on other facilities that may be connected to it or dependent upon it
to adequately function during or immediately following an emergency. Examples are
facilities that supply (or assist in supplying) the following services: electricity, gas, steam,
chilled water, communications (phone, VOIP, computer/data), potable water, sanitary
sewage, or alternate ingress/egress to a neighboring facility.
0 = no interconnectivity/dependency
1 = one interconnected/dependent facility
2 = two interconnected/dependent facilities
3 = three interconnected/dependent facilities
4 = four or more interconnected/dependent facilities
7. Data/Animal Factor (DAF) – This factor represents the “value” of irreplaceable data and/or
live laboratory animals contained within the facility relative to the value of DAF of all
other campus facilities.
1 = “value” of DAF in the lowest quartile of all campus facilities
2 = “value” of DAF in the second lowest quartile of all campus facilities
3 = “value” of DAF in the second highest quartile of all campus facilities
4 = “value” of DAF in the highest quartile of all campus facilities
8. Historic/Cultural Value Factor – This factor represents the potential significant historic or
cultural value of a facility. Briefly justify the rating given to this factor in the white text
box below the ranking entry.
0 = no historic or cultural value
1 = possible historic or cultural value
2 = low historic or cultural value
3 = moderate historic or cultural value
4 = high historic or cultural value
6-4
Table 6.1: Occupancy Category of Buildings and Other Structures for Flood, Wind, Snow, Earthquake, and Ice Loads
6-5
Table 6.2 UFIS Rating Summmary - Template
Building Name
Facility
Occupancy
(1-4)
Emergency
Function
(0-4)
Facility
Loss
(1-4)
Facility Factors
Facility
Business
Interconnectivity
Contents Continuity
(0-4)
(1-4)
(0-4)
Data/Animal
(0-4)
Historic/Cultural
(0-4)
Facility
Importance
Rating
Name of Rater --->
6-6
To: Tom Pohlman
From: Edd Hauser and Sherry Elmes
Date: June, 2010
Subject: Pre-inspection requirements prior to on-site engineering assessments
UNC System PDM Planning Project
Our structural engineering team will require the following, either before or during the week we
are on-site for building inspections:
1. Digital files (if available) of any or all of the following:
 Structural drawings
 Mechanical/electrical drawings (Structural and mechanical/electrical drawings
can answer 20% of the questions on the engineering assessment sheets.)
 Overall campus site plan, with buildings identified by name, roads, other
identifiable infrastructure (we have GIS files on most campuses already)
2. A schedule to access the buildings so as not to conflict with your operating schedule. We
need you to provide for building access and an escort for Zapata Engineering structural
engineers. In addition to an escort, it would be helpful to have a building representative
accompany the team. This person would have knowledge of the building’s history and be
able to answer questions that may arise during the inspection process. (We have found
that someone familiar with each of the buildings inspected can make the process faster
and easier to accomplish.)
3. FCAP reports (most recent available) on the selected buildings.
4. We would also appreciate you identifying before our visit available parking spaces for
two vehicles.
5. The team will need a small meeting space for reviewing and compiling information.
6. We anticipate the inspection process will take 3 days. Our standard operation calls for a
“kick-off” meeting with your team on the morning of the first day, usually a Tuesday.
There are usually some last minute questions/concerns and this gives you and us a chance
to review procedures and schedules.
Thanks for your support and efforts in the PDM planning process.
6-7
User’s Guide to University
Facilities Risk Assessment Spreadsheet
(UFRAS)
6-9
User’s Guide to University Facilities Risk
Assessment Spreadsheet – Version 1.02
Developed by James Dorr, UNC Charlotte
User’s Guide modified by James Dorr, October 26, 2009
Modified by Edd Hauser, P.E., PhD, November 12, 2009
Overview
The University Facilities Risk Assessment Spreadsheet (UFRAS) is a straightforward but relatively
complex model for combining the data from the 92-item questionnaire that is used during the onsite inspection with campus Facilities Management personnel, and the environmental and hazard
data that are available for the county or general area in which each campus is located.
The result of this analysis of on-site buildings (or other infrastructure) – including needs of critical
maintenance, repair, or reconstruction issues – is a matrix relating the risk of each of the nine
natural hazards affecting each individual component of the facility, as well as the overall average
of all hazards and building components. On page 6-12 there are the guideline definitions of (a) the
five facility components, and (b) the definition of the nine hazards used in this project and common
to most FEMA PDM planning processes nationwide. An initial matrix relates the risks associated
with each building as of the date of the on-site inspection.
The second risk matrix relates the recommended Mitigation Measures and the impact of
implementing those measures on the overall risk to the facility. In most cases, there will be a
decrease in risk for each cell, representing the “after implementation” risk, again with the overall
average risk rating. These numbers have no intrinsic unit of measure in themselves, but are relative
measures from the largest risk to the smallest, as explained in more detail in the following general
notes.
Detailed Notes
These guidelines outline the interpretation of the risk matrices found within the facility reports.
Usually, these risk matrices are on the second page of each individual facility report. The risk
matrices are developed from facility inspections and the results from the inspections are integrated
with hazard intensities and frequencies for the area in which the facility is located. The matrices
are designed to offer a relative approximation of what the most ‘at risk’ components of the facility
are and to guide the user as to what will bring about the greatest reduction in overall risk to the
facility.
The facility reports are designed to serve one or more of the following users: campus risk
managers, building managers, business continuity planners, safety and security, and other related
facilities management personnel. Within each facility report, there are two matrices for each
facility that was inspected. The first matrix is called “Risk as of inspection date” and the second
matrix is called “Risk after all mitigation measures are implemented.” As described previously, the
first risk matrix reflects the risk of the facility on the inspection date indicated in the report. The
second risk matrix projects how risk matrix entries could be reduced for the facility if all the
mitigation measures called out in the report were to be implemented for that facility. The values in
the risk matrices range from 1-10, where 1 represents the lowest risk and 10 represents the highest
6-10
risk. The first matrix is normalized by campus, with the result that there will likely be at least one
facility of the ten inspected facilities that rates a “10” and another that rates a “1.” All other risk
matrix entries will fall between 1 and 10 according to the estimated risk of the component/hazard
pair. The second risk matrix is normalized the same way (by campus); however, there may not
necessarily be a score of 10 within the campus set of those (the second matrix in each set of facility
reports) matrices, since the “Risk after all mitigation measures are implemented” matrices are
measuring the projected risk score relative to the scores in the “Risk as of inspection date” matrix.
The model calculates the potential for damage (and the facility’s present condition) and an
independent assessment by the inspection team identifies potential mitigation projects that should
reduce the risk. This risk assessment is made irrespective of the benefit to, or importance of, the
facility. Therefore there is no relationship between the ratings of a facilities “importance,” as
related in the facilities UFIS score, and the UFRAS score that is calculated after each building is
inspected. There are rough order of magnitude (ROM) cost estimates provided for each mitigation
measure.
Each user of the UFRAS model can apply relative weights to the benefit of such costs, since the
user will be most familiar with the campus facilities.
The investment made in one facility may preclude an investment to be made in another facility due
to budget limitations. It is up to the user to assess the level of importance of upgrading one facility
with respect to another based on facility importance, cost of the mitigation measure(s), and risk
reduction. The UFIS tool (UFIS: University Facilities Importance Spreadsheet—a tool developed
to objectively rank the most important facilities on a campus) and/or debate among appropriate
campus officials are suggested to determine where limited funds should be directed based on
facility importance. This debate would assist in determining the level of risk reduction that would
bring the most return on an investment based on the cost of implementing the mitigation measure.
ROM Cost Estimates to Implement Mitigation Measures
Each Mitigation Measure shown on the second page of each facility assessment has a code (A, B,
C, or D) that indicates a very general estimate of the cost, given in the following Rough Orders of
Magnitude.
Group A:
Group B:
Group C:
Group D:
<$5,000
$5,000-$25,000
$25,000-$100,000
>$100,000
A complete description of the application of the UFRAS Model (University Facilities Risk
Assessment Spreadsheet) for each building inspected on this campus is shown in the Appendix,
beginning on page 8-18.
6-11
Definition of Facility Components
Site:
Envelope:
Structure:
Contents:
Utilities:
Any natural occurring or built infrastructure immediately surrounding the primary
facility extending as far as a property boundary. This includes utilities on, over, or
under the site, trees, topography, service/support structures, etc.
All façade elements, flashing, roof, windows, fixtures, etc. of the primary facility.
All load resisting structural members of the primary facility.
Everything contained within the primary facility such as occupants, data, office or
laboratory equipment, etc. Another definition would be anything that is not attached
to the building.
Utility systems within the primary facility. Examples include: communication
lines and distribution systems, HVAC, power distribution and emergency power,
server rooms, fire alarm systems, sprinklers, etc.
Definition of Hazards
Wind:
Tornado:
Seismic:
Ice:
Snow:
Driving rain:
Flood:
Wildfire:
Landslide:
Movement of air due to naturally occurring environmental pressure gradients; a
design parameter for structures.
Similar to wind, but much stronger; usually not a design parameter for structures.
Ground shaking due to movement of the earth’s crust; a design parameter for
structures.
Accumulation of frozen precipitation that can damage components and cause
structures to be damaged by falling trees or other structures, loss of power, etc.
A roof design parameter that can cause overload, especially when complicated by
accumulation of snow drifts. Snow can also cause site and utility damage.
Driving rain can infiltrate the façade, possibly damaging contents and deteriorating
the facade. Also included is localized flooding in poor drainage areas.
Flood differs from driving rain in that the hazard is more widespread (i.e. occurs in
the flood zone) and is usually associated with the 100-year flood calculations. This
planning document delineates a GIS outline of the 100-year flood on each campus.
Wildfire in general includes brushfire or accidental facility fires. However, in the
strictness sense, it is fire that starts on-site or the in the surrounding area. This
hazard, by default, can be related to the facility’s resilience to traditional building
fires. Wildfire is predominately triggered by lightning strikes, arson, or accidents
when drought-related conditions prevail.
Landslides (rockslides, mudslides, or both) can range from heavy erosion to slope
failures that damage site components that can wash out a structure. These risk
values must be understood relative to very broad conditions on the site or in close
proximity to the site. If it is obvious that erosion is the main concern, then the
landslide score is indicating an erosion risk from 1-10. The driving force behind
the landslide hazard is driving rain and/or seismic shaking as it relates to site
conditions and potentially unstable terrain.
A complete description of the application of the UFRAS Model (University Facilities Risk
Assessment Spreadsheet) for each building inspected on this campus is shown in the Appendix,
beginning on page 8-18.
6-12
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
LANDSLIDE
WILDFIRE
FLOOD/RAIN
SNOW
Question/Statement
For the primary facility on the site, determine the design occupancy
category according to Table1-1 of ASCE 7-05.
For the primary facility on the site, determine the actual occupancy
category according to Table1-1 of ASCE 7-05.
Rate emergency vehicle access to the site and to the facility of
interest within the site; consider size/capacity of routes, redundancy
of routes, potential obstructions, etc. Note specific concerns.
Rate pedestrian exposure to vehicular impacts considering
placement of sidewalks/crosswalks/paths relative to roads/bicycle
paths; also consider road layout, hills, curves, etc. when roads are
wet or covered with ice/snow. Note specific concerns.
Rate the exposure of the facility to vehicular impacts considering
placement of the facility relative to roads; also consider road layout,
hills, curves, etc. when roads are wet or covered with ice/snow. Note
specific concerns.
Rate the exposure of site components (including utilities) to
vehicular impacts considering placement of components relative to
roads; also consider road layout, hills, curves, etc. when roads are
wet or covered with ice/snow. Note specific concerns.
Rate the overall vulnerability of all utilities (utility lines and
supporting equipment) to the facility on the site.Consider all hazards
that could damage/destroy utility lines and consider surrounding
sites as necessary.Note the utilities that receive ratings higher than 1.
Rate how effectively utility lines are grouped/routed throughout the
site, including interconnectivity with other sites. This rating involves
the overall utilities layout with consideration given to how one utility
is situated relative to another and utility placement relative to the
site’s usage. Note specific concerns.
Rate the emergency shut-off systems for all potentially dangerous
utilities (steam, gas, etc.) within the site. Note specific concerns.
Rate the exposure of hazardous materials stored on the site
considering all hazards.Note the hazardous materials that receive
ratings higher than 1.
Rate the proximity of surrounding facilities that could slam into the
facility of interest when subjected to large lateral loads (seismic, high
winds, landslide, etc.). Note specific concerns.
Determine the site class using Table 20.3-1 of ASCE 7-05; consider
site/soil remediation efforts such as soil compaction, replacement of
poor soil with better soil, etc.
Rate the vulnerability of all site components (except utilities) to
seismic shaking.
Determine the design wind speed used to design the facility,
especially if the facility lies in a special wind region.
Determine the surface roughness category of the site and
surrounding sites (1=B, 2=C, or 3=D).
7/7/2011 10:10
ICE
Q
SITE, PAGE 1 OF 2
SEISMIC
INSPECTION
DATE
WIND/TORNADO
FACILITY
Printed:
UFRAS INSPECTION CHECKLIST
RANGE
CAMPUS
1-4
1-4
1-4
1-4
1-4
1-4
1-4
1-4
1-4
1-4
1-4
1-4
1-4
1-2
1-3
6-13
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
LANDSLIDE
WILDFIRE
FLOOD/RAIN
SNOW
Question/Statement
Rate the exposure to wind speed up effects on the site due to site
topography.
Rate the vulnerability of site components (except utilities) to windinduced hazards. Consider wind pressure loading, wind-borne debris
and impact of fixed objects such as nearby trees colliding with site
components; for wind-borne debris consider the site of interest and
surrounding sites. Note specific concerns.
Rate the exposure of the facility to wind hazards. Consider windborne debris and impact of fixed objects such as nearby trees
colliding with the facility; for wind-borne debris consider the site of
interest and surrounding sites. Note specific concerns.
Determine the percent of the site that is in the 100-year floodplain.
Determine the facility’s lowest elevation relative to the 100-year
floodplain.
Rate the facility's reliance on drainage infrastructure.
Rate the vulnerability of site components (except utilities) to flood
waters. Note specific concerns.
Rate the exposure of the facility to a landslide event; consider the
site of interest and surrounding sites.
Rate the exposure of site components (except utilities) to a landslide
event; consider the site of interest and the potential effects of
surrounding sites.
Determine the ground snow load used to design the facility.
Classify the facility’s roof exposure based on Table 7-2 of ASCE 7-05.
Rate the potential for increased snow loading on the facility due to
surrounding taller structures/trees within 20 ft of the facility if this
was likely not accounted for in the facility’s initial design.
Rate the exposure of vulnerable site components (except utilities) to
a snow/ice event; consider the site of interest and the potential
effects of surrounding sites.
Rate the fuel available (exposure) for a wildfire to approach the
facility; consider the site of interest and surrounding sites.
Rate the fuel available (exposure) for a wildfire to approach
vulnerable site components (except utilities); consider the site of
interest and surrounding sites.
Except for utilities, rate the site’s vulnerability to all other hazards
(hazards not directly considered above) with respect to indigenous or
man-made geological formations (water table location, rock
formations, poor soils susceptible to liquefaction or sinkholes, etc.).
Note the specific vulnerability and the corresponding hazard.
Rate the general Exposure x Vulnerability composite score of the
“Site/General” components after completing all other ratings of the
“Site/General” inspection checklist. Repairs (increased vulnerability)
and retrofits (decreased vulnerability) of site components should be
considered and noted in this rating.
7/7/2011 10:10
ICE
Q
SITE, Page 2 OF 2
SEISMIC
INSPECTION
DATE
WIND/TORNADO
FACILITY
Printed:
UFRAS INSPECTION CHECKLIST
RANGE
CAMPUS
1-4
1-4
1-4
1-4
1-4
1-4
1-4
1-4
1-4
1-2
1-3
1-4
1-4
1-4
1-4
1-4
1-4
6-14
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
LANDSLIDE
WILDFIRE
FLOOD/RAIN
SNOW
Question/Statement
Record the enclosure classification. (1 = Open, 2 = Enclosed, 3 =
Partially Enclosed)
Rate the level of geometric irregularities in elevation (consider the
composite of all elevations).
Rate the level of geometric irregularities in plan.
Rate the potential for development and severity of snow drifts based
solely on roof geometry.
Determine the construction type as defined in IBC 2006, Section 602.
[Type I &II = 1, Type III = 2, Type IV = 3, Type V = 4]
Rate the vulnerability (resistance) of architectural
features/nonstructural components attached to the façade system,
with special consideration given to components being located near
corners, eaves, and other wind speed up regions. Also consider
attachment configuration and condition.
Rate the vulnerability (resistance) of architectural
features/nonstructural components attached to the roof envelope
system, with special consideration given to components being
located near corners, eaves, and other wind speed up regions. Also
consider attachment configuration and condition.
Rate the vulnerability (resistance) of windows considering: percent of
glass on façade/roof, glass type (annealed, heat strengthened,
tempered, polycarbonate) and lay-up (including laminated glass),
adequacy of mullions and window frames, window film, film
attachment, catch systems, and locking mechanisms (for operable
windows).
Rate the vulnerability (resistance) of pedestrian/vehicular doors
considering: door construction, adequacy of door frames, hinges, and
locking mechanisms.
Rate the vulnerability (resistance) of the veneer/bearing wall façade
system to out-of-plane and in-plane loading that might lead to
breach of the envelope. Similar to considerations for “Structure” the
rating for the façade system should include estimates for: seismic
response modification factor, over strength factor, and façade
flexibility. Note that load bearing walls will likely have a higher
resistance to out-of-plane loads.
Rate the overall quality and condition of the facade system, including
all envelope connections and seals.
Rate the vulnerability (resistance) of the (nonstructural) roof
envelope system to out-of-plane (i.e. wind, snow, ice) and in-plane
loading that might lead to breach of the envelope. Similar to
considerations for “Structure” the rating for the roof envelope
system should include estimates for: seismic response modification
factor, over strength factor, and roof envelope flexibility.
Rate the overall quality and condition of the (nonstructural) roof
envelope system, including all envelope connections and seals.
7/7/2011 10:10
ICE
Q
ENVELOPE, PAGE 1 OF 2
SEISMIC
INSPECTION
DATE
WIND/TORNADO
FACILITY
Printed:
UFRAS INSPECTION CHECKLIST
RANGE
CAMPUS
1-4
1-4
1-4
1-4
1-4
1-4
1-4
1-4
1-4
1-4
1-4
1-4
1-4
6-15
14
15
16
17
18
19
LANDSLIDE
WILDFIRE
FLOOD/RAIN
SNOW
Question/Statement
Rate the roof’s susceptibility to ponding with consideration given to
roof slope, drainage redundancy, and maintenance.
Rate the architectural performance (i.e. thermal barrier, moisture
barrier, natural lighting) of the facade system; pay special attention
to flashing around windows, doors, vents, etc. Note reasons for the
higher scores.
Rate the architectural performance (i.e. thermal/moisture barrier,
natural lighting) of the roof envelope system; pay special attention
to flashing around clerestories, skylights, hatches, etc. Note reasons
for the higher scores.
Rate the architectural performance (i.e. thermal barrier, moisture
barrier) of the lowest level “floor plane”. Note reasons for the higher
scores.
Rate the potential for or history of adverse interactions of the
envelope system with other facility components (structure, contents,
utilities, site).
Rate the general Exposure x Vulnerability composite score of the
“Envelope” after completing all other ratings of the “Envelope”
inspection checklist. Repairs (increased vulnerability) and retrofits
(decreased vulnerability) of the structure should be considered and
noted in this rating.
7/7/2011 10:10
ICE
Q
ENVELOPE, PAGE 2 OF 2
SEISMIC
INSPECTION
DATE
WIND/TORNADO
FACILITY
Printed:
UFRAS INSPECTION CHECKLIST
RANGE
CAMPUS
1-4
1-4
1-4
1-4
1-4
1-4
6-16
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
LANDSLIDE
WILDFIRE
FLOOD/RAIN
SNOW
Question/Statement
Record the facility’s mean roof height (in feet).
Determine if the structural system is a hybrid structural system, and
rate the potential for adverse interactions due to potentially
dissimilar system responses.
In order to approximately compute the structure’s period, classify
the structure as one of the following: 1-Steel MRF, 2-Concrete MRF, 3Eccentrically braced frame, 4-Other.
Rate the level of horizontal (plan) structural irregularities of the
facility based on Table 12.3-1 in ASCE 7-05.
Rate the level of vertical (elevation) structural irregularities (up the
height) of the facility based on Table 12.3-2 in ASCE 7-05.
Use Table 12.2-1 in ASCE 7-05 to determine the seismic response
modification factor R.
Use Table 12.2-1 in ASCE 7-05 to determine the system over strength
factor Ω.
In addition to Item 7 (immediately above), rate the potential over
strength/stiffness contributions of elevator core(s), stairwell core(s),
stair structures, rigid chases, etc. that are traditionally neglected in
structural design.
Use Table 12.2-1 in ASCE 7-05 to determine the deflection
amplification factor Cd.
Rate the potential for or history of adverse interactions of the
structural system with other facility components (envelope,
contents, utilities, site/general).
Rate the overall quality and condition of the structural system,
including member-to-member connections. (Consider performance
under hazard overload)
Rate the overall quality and condition of the foundation and
structural connections to the foundation (consider performance
under hazard overload).
Rate the overall quality and condition of the connections anchoring
the roof structural system to the supporting structure. (Consider
performance under hazard overload)
Rate the fire resistance/protection of structural members.
Rate the general Exposure x Vulnerability composite score of the
“Structure” after completing all other ratings of the “Structure”
inspection checklist. Repairs (increased vulnerability) and retrofits
(decreased vulnerability) of the structure should be considered and
noted in this rating.
7/7/2011 10:10
ICE
Q
1
STRUCTURE PAGE 1 OF 1
SEISMIC
INSPECTION
DATE
WIND/TORNADO
FACILITY
Printed:
UFRAS INSPECTION CHECKLIST
RANGE
CAMPUS
1-4
1-4
1-4
1-4
1-4
1-4
1-4
1-4
1-4
1-4
1-4
1-4
1-4
1-4
6-17
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
LANDSLIDE
WILDFIRE
FLOOD/RAIN
SNOW
Question/Statement
Rate how effectively the utility lines are grouped/routed throughout
the facility, including where they penetrate the facility’s envelope;
this rating involves the overall utilities layout with consideration
given to how one utility is situated relative to another and utility
placement relative to the facility’s function(s). This rating, for
example, would give an indication of whether damage of one utility
system would cause damage to other utility systems.
Rate the overall quality and condition of utility lines, support
equipment, and associated connections to the structural system (or
adequate nonstructural components). Note the utilities that receive
ratings higher than 1.
Is the facility equipped with a sprinkler/fire suppression system?
(1-yes, 2-no)
Rate the exposure of utilities that are vulnerable to water damage
considering their location and the surrounding drainage
infrastructure. Note the utilities that receive ratings higher than 1.
Rate the exposure of utilities that are vulnerable to fire considering
their location. Note the utilities that receive ratings higher than 1.
Rate the emergency shut-off systems for all potentially dangerous
utilities (gas, steam, water, air). Note the utilities that receive ratings
higher than 1.
Rate the exposure of utilities that are vulnerable to lateral or vertical
shaking due to seismic or other extreme lateral loads; this includes
utility system supports, connections, and support equipment
connected to the structure or to the envelope. Note the utilities that
receive ratings higher than 1.
Rate the exposure of utilities that are vulnerable to large vertical
static deflections that might result from static overload. Note the
utilities that receive ratings higher than 1.
Rate the vulnerability of utilities where they penetrate the facility or
are attached to its envelope. Consider isolation of utility lines from
the building envelope where seismic shaking could sever the line(s).
Rate the redundancy of power and/or power back-up systems.
Rate the redundancy of HVAC system(s) if sustained environmental
conditions are critical to the facility’s function (or HVAC back-up for
regions in a facility where controlled environmental conditions are
critical: server rooms, communications rooms, etc.).
Rate the redundancy of communications and fire/safety systems.
Rate the potential for, or history of, adverse interactions of the
utilities with other facility components (envelope, structure,
contents, site).
Rate the general Exposure x Vulnerability composite score of the
“Utilities” after completing all other ratings of the “Utilities”
inspection checklist. Repairs (increased vulnerability) and retrofits
(decreased vulnerability) of utilities systems should be considered
and noted in this rating.
7/7/2011 10:10
ICE
Q
UTILITIES PAGE 1 OF 1
SEISMIC
INSPECTION
DATE
WIND/TORNADO
FACILITY
Printed:
UFRAS INSPECTION CHECKLIST
RANGE
CAMPUS
1-4
1-4
1-2
1-4
1-4
1-4
1-4
1-4
1-4
1-4
1-4
1-4
1-4
1-4
6-18
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
LANDSLIDE
WILDFIRE
FLOOD/RAIN
SNOW
Question/Statement
Rate the evacuation routes in the facility (capacity of corridors and
stairwells, redundancy of routes, distance to nearest exit, etc.). Note
specific concerns.
Rate the exposure of facility occupants that typically occupy the
space within 10 ft of the facility envelope. Consider number of
occupants and the time spent near the facility envelope.
Rate the location, quantity, and combustibility of materials in the
facility. Note specific materials of concern.
Rate the quantity and level of toxicity of hazardous materials in the
facility; also consider how these materials are stored/contained.
Note toxicity and containment of the specific materials of concern.
Rate how effectively built-in nonstructural components are
connected to the structural back-up (or the building envelope);
consider where components are located up the height of the facility.
Note the components of concern.
Rate the stability/connections of other significant nonstructural
components; consider where components are located up the height
of the facility. Note the components that receive ratings higher than
1.
Rate the exposure of facility occupants to nonstructural components
that could cause physical harm (i.e. blunt trauma) should they fall or
topple. Note specific concerns.
Rate the exposure of facility occupants to utilities systems that could
cause physical harm (shock, asphyxiation, burns, etc.) should they
malfunction. Note specific concerns.
Rate the contents that are vulnerable to large vertical static
deflections that might result from static overload (i.e. heavy roof
snow/ice/ponding loads or floor overloads). Note the contents that
receive ratings higher than 1.
Rate the exposure of contents that are vulnerable to water damage
near water or steam lines. Consider value, importance, and quantity
of the contents in the rating. Note the contents that receive ratings
higher than 1.
Rate the exposure of contents that are vulnerable to water damage
near the facility’s envelope. Consider value, importance, and quantity
of the contents in the rating. Note the contents that receive ratings
higher than 1.
Rate the potential for or history of damage to facility contents or
adverse interactions of contents with other facility components (site,
envelope, structure, contents, and utilities).
Rate the general Exposure x Vulnerability composite score of the
“Contents” after completing all other ratings of the “Contents”
inspection checklist. Replacement/repairs (increased vulnerability)
and relocation/protecting (decreased vulnerability) contents.
7/7/2011 10:10
ICE
Q
CONTENTS PAGE 1 OF 1
SEISMIC
INSPECTION
DATE
WIND/TORNADO
FACILITY
Printed:
UFRAS INSPECTION CHECKLIST
RANGE
CAMPUS
1-4
1-4
1-2
1-4
1-4
1-4
1-4
1-4
1-4
1-4
1-4
1-4
1-4
6-19