.-
• ..._
.
Earthqu ako h;,,:,,(f t .(l,uci* Survey.
• " - collection
Seismic Restraint of Mechanical
and Electrical Systems
April 26, 2000
EPICS 251, Team 4
Mandy Bonkoski
Joseph Carsten
Ben Hansuld
James Hochnadel
Dan 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 for
mechanical and electrical systems of the 1997 Uniform Building Code being enforced or
complied 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 the
provisions that are currently in place for the seismic restraint of mechanical and electrical
systems, considering:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Earthquake history and risk in Colorado
Economic and non-economic impacts of earthquakes in low seismic zones
Influence of building inspectors
Influence of building owners, architects, and engineers
Seismic provisions of other states
For the majority of these parameters, most of our research consisted of knowledgeable published
sources. However, our research of building inspectors, building owners, architects, and
engineers was mainly accomplished via: interviews and questionnaires.
Based on this research, we arrived at the following six conclusions:
1.
2.
3.
4.
Earthquake risk exists in Colorado
Significant damage can result from moderate earthquakes
Seismic restraint is weakly enforced in Colorado
Most building owners, architects, and engineers do not perceive earthquake risk in
Colorado
5. Building owners, architects, and engineers are generally unaware of the seismic restraint
provisions for mechanical and electrical systems of the Uniform Building Code
6. 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 the
seismic restraint provisions for mechanical and electrical systems are not being enforced or
implemented. Our research revealed that building inspectors have for the most part not enforced
these provisions because they believe they are unnecessary. We feel the combination of this lack
of enforcement and conclusion four above lead to the non-implementation of seismic restraint by
builders. We arrived at conclusion one after discovering that several moderate earthquakes (5.-0
to 6.5 on the Richter Scale) have occurred in the past 150 years in Colorado and that experts
predict that more will occur in the future. Meanwhile, conclusion two was determined after we
learned that moderate earthquakes have caused billions of dollars in property damage, resulted in
thousands of injuries and deaths, and initiated devastating psychological trauma. If one were to
occur in Colorado, the effect could be much worse than that of those we researched due to
Colorado's modern infrastructure and lack of preparation. As a result, we believe that
conclusions one and two show that the seismic restraint provisions for mechanical and electrical
systems are necessary in Colorado, essentially answering our central question.
Based on these conclusions, we have produced four recommendations for the implementation
and enforcement of seismic restraint for mechanical and electrical systems in Colorado:
1.
2.
3.
4.
Creation of a Seismic Safety Commission
Formation of a Standard Set of Regulations for Focus Counties
Study of Earthquake Impacts and Seismic Safety Commission Requirements
Seismic Education Programs for Focus Counties
We believe that each recommendation is justified because the benefits of improved building
occupant safety and drastically mitigated economic damage far outweigh the cost of their
implementation. Utah expects to incur $3.15 billion in damage to non-reinforced buildings
during their next fairly large earthquake. This and other western states have shown no hesitation
to 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 this
Commission could be successful in Colorado if building participants are properly informed of
the risk of moderate earthquakes that exists along the Front Range. Our fourth recommendation
addresses this by mandating education programs for building participants in counties of highest
seismic risk (Larimer, Boulder, Jefferson, Denver, and Adams). The standard set of regulations
(conclusion two) specifies the code requirements, enforcement parties, and implementation
parties for these focus counties and should be an integral part of the education programs we are
recommending. Finally, the study of earthquake impacts and Seismic Safety Commission
requirements brings all of these recommendations together by further justifying and defining
each of our recommendations. While implementation of each would afford the greatest
opportunity for success, achievement of any one recommendation or combination thereof would
be better than no action at all. If given the initiative, a knowledgeable body with the proper
resources can act on these recommendations and begin improving the earthquake safety of
Colorado'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
2.2
2.3
2.4
2.5
Earthquake History
Impact of Moderate Earthquakes
Influence of Building Inspectors
Influence of Building Owners, Architects, and Engineers
Successful Implementation of Seismic Restraint
3
6
9
11
13
in. Conclusions Obtained From Parameter Research
14
IV. Recommendations for the Implementation and Enforcement of
Seismic Restraint for Mechanical and Electrical Systems
17
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 produced
concerning the seismic restraint of mechanical and electrical systems. We, EPICS 251 Team 4 at
the Colorado School of Mines, conducted this research in order to answer the following central
research question: how might we best determine whether the seismic risk in Colorado warrants
the provisions that are currently in place for the seismic restraint of mechanical and electrical
systems, considering:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Earthquake history and risk in Colorado
Economic and non-economic impacts of earthquakes in low seismic zones
Influence of building inspectors
Influence of building owners, architects, and engineers
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 question
regarding the seismic restraint of mechanical and electrical systems. We attempted an answer to
help 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 restraint
provisions 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 a
mechanical and electrical system of the nature being examined in this report. In this photo, the
unit 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 electrical
systems 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 and
contractors 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 primary
reason 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 to
view the Seismic Zone Map of the United States. Seismic risk increases in intensity on this map
from a low in zone 0 to a high in zone 4. By answering our central research question, we will be
able to provide Mr. Haughey with recommendations to enable a level playing field in the
construction 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 is
primarily zone 1, with some zone 0, and a small patch of zone 2B in the south-central portion of
the 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 of
magnitude 5 to 6 and higher. Some of these earthquakes were man-made by fluid injection at the
Rocky Mountain Arsenal, and if an earthquake were to occur today, most people believe that it
would be along this same fault. It is not a matter of whether this event is going to occur, it is
matter of when. If a mechanical or electrical system is not properly restrained, much damage can
result. Damage to infrastructure is not the only threat, as there are secondary geologic hazards
are associated with earthquakes. Landslides and liquefaction can cause severe damage to
buildings and roads.
There are 90 potentially active faults that have documented movement within the past 1.6 million
years. There are also several thousands of other faults that have little to no potential for
producing movement in future years [3:1]. The most damaging earthquake in Colorado's history
occurred in 1882. It was the first to ever cause damage in Denver. The magnitude of this
earthquake is highly disputed. Some authors believe it to be a 6.2 on the Richter scale, whereas
others 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, which
should be helpful in evaluating these magnitudes.
The next earthquakes that had an impact on the Denver area began in 1962. These earthquakes
were due to the Rocky Mountain Arsenal disposal of waste fluids into the ground. Studies have
found that even though these earthquakes were triggered by fluid injection, tectonic stresses
existed before the injections. Since the stresses existed, the fluid injection merely lubricated the
faults, and it is possible that these faults could move naturally in the future [4:104]. Figure 2.1
shows the maximum historical earthquake intensities in Colorado. It should clarify how severe
earthquakes 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. Roman
letters represent Modified Mercalli Scale intensities. This scale is a qualitative measure of the
degree 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's
structure, but damage to its interior as well. Light fixtures, ceiling fans, and pipes, if not
properly restrained, could fall if a magnitude 5 or 6 earthquake occurred. With the increases in
infrastructure along the Front Range, there is a risk many people could be injured and property
damage could be great. Figure 2.2 is a map we have prepared that shows counties of Colorado
with 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 earthquake
intensity 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 of
when an earthquake might occur. This time frame can be from 10 to 1000 years, but sources say
an earthquake will occur in Colorado's future. The problem with prediction of earthquakes is
that 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 to
increased infrastructure in the Denver Metropolitan area, the impact that a magnitude 6
earthquake would have is large. Also, another factor that could pose dangerous consequences is
that 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 is
graphically demonstrated by four specific quakes. These quakes range in magnitude from 5.3 to
5.9. The quakes are listed below along with the reason each was chosen.
•
Daly City, California earthquake of 1957, chosen for eyewitness accounts of
emotional trauma
• Whittier Narrows, California earthquake of 1987, demonstrates damage possibilities
in a modern city with up to date building codes
• Newcastle, Australia earthquake of 1989, shows earthquake impact in a modern city
located in a low seismic risk zone
» Agadir, Morocco earthquake of 1960, illustrates the damage possible when there are
no seismic building provisions and substandard building practices are employed
On March 22, 1957 a magnitude 5.3 earthquake struck the San Francisco Bay Area. The
epicenter 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 a
summary and Appendix C for photographs of the earthquake) [8]. Although the economic
impact of this quake was not catastrophic, many suffered severe emotional distress. Several
eyewitnesses describe the Daly City earthquake as the most intense and terrifying earthquake
experience they have ever had. One witness even described it as worse than the Loma Prieta
earthquake that measured 7.1 on the Richter scale. These accounts come from people who were
children at the time of the Daly City quake, which may account for why they found the quake to
be so frightening [9].
The Whittier Narrows quake struck the Los Angeles Area on October 1, 1987 and had a
magnitude of 5.9. Eight lives were lost in the quake [10] and 200 were injured [11]. More than
10,400 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]. In
addition, disaster relief from all federal agencies totaled an astounding $191 billion [13].
Nonstructural damage was also rampant. Light fixtures, suspended ceilings, and ductwork not
constructed to comply with seismic building codes failed [14:55]. One person was even killed
when connectors for a pre-cast concrete fascia panel failed. The panel fell two stories and landed
on the person [15].
A magnitude 5.6 earthquake struck Newcastle, Australia on December 28, 1989. At the time of
the quake, this area was considered to have low seismic risk. Thirteen people were killed in the
quake and 162 hospitalized. Sixty thousand buildings were damaged and 300 demolished. More
than 35,000 insurance claims were filed and insured losses totaled $1 billion. Total property
damage was estimated at $4 billion (see Figure 2.3 for a summary and Appendix C for
photographs of the earthquake) [16]. Several major hospitals sustained serious damage, which
caused a disruption of medical services. One hospital was even evacuated due to fears that it
would collapse during an aftershock. The situation in Newcastle bears a striking resemblance to
that in Colorado. Before this earthquake occurred, most in Newcastle did not believe a moderate
earthquake 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 of
earthquake that could occur in Colorado [17].
Agadir, Morocco was struck by a magnitude 5.9 earthquake on February 29, 1960 [18]. Out of a
population 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 central
part of the city were totally demolished (see Figure 2.3 for a summary and Appendix C for
photographs of the earthquake) [19:82]. There are several reasons that this earthquake was so
devastating. Stone masonry structures were extremely prevalent in the city. Most were
constructed without reinforcement or tie-ins. The majority of these structures collapsed and were
responsible for a large share of the injuries and deaths [19:33]. In addition, with no seismic
building codes in place, most structures lacked significant resistance to lateral forces [19:31].
Several large buildings constructed with reinforced concrete frames, but only designed for
vertical loads, collapsed [19:42].
Figure 2.3: Earthquake Impact Summary
Location
Daly City, CAa
Whittier
Narrows, CAb
Newcastle,
Australia11
Agadir,
Morocco6
Sources: a [8], b
Date
March 22, 1957
October 1, 1987
Magnitude
5.3
5.9
December 28,
5.6
1989
February 29,
5.9
1960
[10], c [11], d [16], e [19]
Property Damage
$1 million
$358 million
Injuries
Deaths
40
200C
0
8
$4 billion
162
13
Dollar Amount
Unknown
12,000
12,000
Each of the above earthquakes was smaller in magnitude than the estimated 6.2 magnitude quake
that occurred in Colorado in 1882. This earthquake caused little damage due to the fact that the
state was sparsely populated at the time. Since that time, a massive population buildup and a
great deal of development have taken place along the Front Range. Correlating this fact with the
damage 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 earthquake
damage is that which occurs to nonstructural components (such as mechanical and electrical
systems). Ambrose and Vergun in Design for Earthquakes note that failure of many
nonstructural systems may not lead to building collapse, but "will still constitute danger for
occupants and cost of replacement or repair" [20:231]. They particularly emphasize the danger
caused by the failure of heating systems, which can result in gas poisoning or explosions. Figure
2.4 demonstrates the danger posed by mechanical and electrical systems with no seismic
restraint, in this case light fixtures that have fallen from a ceiling. Appendix B provides a
broader 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 Fernando
earthquake of 1971.
Source: Nonstructural Issues of Seismic Design and Construction, Berkeley, CA: Earthquake
Engineering Research Institute, 1984, p. 21 [21].
It is obvious that the economic and non-economic impact of moderate earthquakes can be
disastrous. These smaller earthquakes, which measure less than 6.0 on the Richter scale, can
cause immense damage. Property damage can climb into the billions of dollars and, in certain
circumstances, the death toll into the thousands. These quakes can also cause severe emotional
trauma to those who live through them, especially children. These facts underscore the need for
seismic provisions in the building code. These provisions serve to lessen the impact of a seismic
event and, as witnessed, even a small event can have a tremendous impact. See Appendix C to
view 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 Colorado
was the main research goal for the third parameter of our central question. The sources used to
research 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 United
States. However, this does not mean that every city, county, or state is using the same version or
even the same parts. The UBC is updated every three years, but not all cities, counties, and
states adopt it at the same time. Arapahoe County and the City of Aurora are two offices in
Colorado 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 (mechanical
and electrical systems) have been gradually increasing since their introduction in 1927. Several
changes to these criteria of the UBC occurred between 1994 and 1997, which moderately
increased the requirements. First, seismic provisions were revised from an allowable stress
design basis to a strength design basis. In addition, the determination of earthquake design
forces became more complicated. This is due to the fact that the 1997 UBC requires
consideration of soil type, proximity to active faults, and elevation in the building [1]. These
changes and the more stringent requirements show the need for most of the Front Range to adopt
the 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 survey
was to get an honest idea of how these people feel and act on the issues of seismic restraint in
Colorado. Each respondent was first notified of the survey and its contents. The survey was
then sent to each respondent. Out of eighteen surveys sent, ten were returned. The results are
summarized 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 and
mechanical 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 the
next 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 restraint
sections of the Uniform Building Code. However, it shows that only twenty percent of these
inspectors enforce this code in their region of Colorado. The answer to Michael Haughey's
question regarding enforcement of the seismic restraint requirements for mechanical and
electrical systems is reflected in this finding. The weak enforcement of the seismic provisions
for mechanical and electrical systems leads to the conclusion that the inspectors surveyed do not
feel that this section of the code is necessary in Colorado. This is represented in question 2 of
the survey results, in which sixty percent of the respondents do not feel that this section of the
code 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 influence
of building owners, architects, and engineers. We sought to answer the following two questions
to accomplish this:
1. What is the opinion of building owners, architects, and engineers regarding the seismic
restraint 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 (especially
high technology industry), which has a huge financial interest in the integrity of its buildings and
the systems therein. As a result of our concentration on industry, our survey of building owners
may not present an accurate picture of the general influence building owners have on the
implementation of seismic restraint for mechanical and electrical systems. More detailed
research into this area might include input from owners of real estate holding companies and
administrators of federal government buildings.
Although we sent questionnaires to eleven architectural firms, we only received responses from
three. Nonetheless, it appears that architects do not have much influence on the implementation
of seismic restraint for mechanical and electrical systems. They all indicated it was the
responsibility 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 seismic
restraint for mechanical and electrical systems of the three groups researched, due to their greater
knowledge of these systems. Figure 2.3 shows equipment whose damage could have been
prevented by an engineer applying to seismic restraint his knowledge of mechanical and
electrical systems.
Based on our research, we arrived at four conclusions regarding the influence of building
owners, architects, and engineers on the seismic restraint of mechanical and electrical systems:
1. Building owners, architects, and engineers in Colorado are generally unaware of seismic
restraint provisions for mechanical and electrical systems.
2. Architects and engineers in Colorado tend to pass the responsibility of complying with
seismic regulations to other parties. This delegation of responsibility appears to prevent
the 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 the
provisions for mechanical and electrical systems. This lack of enforcement does not
provide much incentive to comply with building codes, and may be another negative
influence 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 central
research question discussed earlier: the influence of building inspectors.
4. Most building owners, architects, and engineers in Colorado do not consider a moderate
earthquake to be a serious threat during their lifetimes. This lack of perception of risk
makes it difficult for these individuals to seriously consider the implementation of
seismic restraint.
In summary, building owners, architects, and engineers are generally not aware of the seismic
restraint provisions for mechanical and electrical systems. This is probably due to weak
enforcement of these seismic restraint provisions by building inspectors. This weak enforcement
likely stems from the findings of research parameter three that inspectors believe that the seismic
restraint 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, we
looked into features of both Utah and California that have helped them to prepare for
earthquakes. From our research, we found that both of these states have taken an active interest
to ensure that their states will be as safe as possible when an earthquake hits. One way they have
done this is by forming a Seismic Safety Commission that is the main authority in each state
regarding seismic. These commissions do a variety of things in their individual states ranging
from issuing a statewide plan outlining where the state is lacking in seismic provisions and what
needs to be done to lobbying and writing seismic legislation. Through the creation of the
Seismic Safety Commissions, both California and Utah have minimized the impact that future
earthquakes will have on their state.
In conjunction with the Seismic Safety Commissions, California and Utah have helped to ensure
the safety of their populace during an earthquake by adopting and enforcing the seismic
provisions of the Uniform Building Code (UBC). In California, state law requires that the
building codes are followed and that local jurisdictions follow the same edition of the building
code 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 building
inspectors. By licensing building inspectors through the state, California has helped to guarantee
that the inspectors are aware of the seismic provisions and that they will check to make sure that
they are being followed.
Just like California, Utah has also adopted the UBC statewide and it requires that all local
building jurisdictions follow the UBC and any amendments the state has made to it. Utah also
requires 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 the
seismic 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 incur
the cost of these commissions; however, these states are willing to continue to expend money on
the commissions because of the benefits derived from them. For instance, Utah only recently
adopted the seismic provisions of the UBC. As a result, there are still many buildings in this
state that are not built to seismic code. The next big earthquake in Utah is expected to cause $4.5
billion 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 they
are willing to continue to fund the Seismic Safety Commission and also fund projects to retrofit
older buildings so that they comply with the seismic provisions of the UBC. The cost of
maintaining a seismic watchdog like the Seismic Safety Commission and retrofitting old
buildings is minimal compared to the $3.15 billion that Utah could incur (damage to nonreinforced buildings) if an earthquake occurred tomorrow.
The key to both California and Utah's success is that both perceive earthquakes to be a threat in
their states. By accepting the fact that earthquakes will occur in their states in the future, both
California and Utah have taken steps to lessen the impact of future earthquakes and successfully
instituted 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 have
arrived at several conclusions.
1. Earthquake risk exists in Colorado
Fairly large earthquakes (5.0-6.5 in Richter magnitude) have occurred in the past 150 years in
Colorado. Experts predict earthquakes similar to these will occur in the future, they just don't
know when. Given the modern infrastructure along the Front Range, where much of the
historical earthquake activity has been focused and where much of Colorado's population is
located, a moderate earthquake in this area will have a much more severe economic and physical
impact than those that occurred in the past. We believe this risk of significant economic and
physical damage merits further research into the impact of moderate earthquakes (discussed in
recommendation three in the recommendations section), which can be used to improve building
occupant safety and reduce economic consequences in the event of a moderate earthquake.
2. Significant damage can result from moderate earthquakes
The economic and non-economic impaets of moderate earthquakes can be quite severe. Property
damage can climb into the billions of dollars and, in certain circumstances, the death toll into the
thousands. These earthquakes can also cause severe emotional trauma to those who live through
them, especially children. Implementation of seismic provisions of building codes has proven to
be an effective way to mitigate this damage. For instance, seventy percent of the damage caused
by the next fairly large earthquake in Utah is expected to occur because buildings and their
contents were not properly reinforced. We believe the benefits that can be obtained through
seismic restraint—improved safety of building occupants and significant mitigation of economic
damage—merit its cost. In order to accomplish these benefits, however, Colorado must begin to
enforce the seismic provisions of the Uniform Building Code. We feel the best way to
accomplish the implementation of seismic restraint for mechanical and electrical systems is to
implement the recommendations described in the following recommendations section.
3. Seismic restraint is weakly enforced in Colorado
The results of our building inspector, building owner, architect, and engineer research show that
the seismic provisions of the Uniform Building Code for mechanical and electrical systems are
weakly enforced in Colorado. Only twenty percent of building inspectors in our survey enforce
these provisions and then only in those instances when already designed into the project. The
input of building owners, architects, and engineers we questioned mirrors this finding. Since
sixty percent of the building inspectors in our survey feel that these regulations are unnecessary
in Colorado, we believe this is the primary reason they are not enforced. Finally, we believe this
weak enforcement—coupled with the general unawareness of these seismic restraint provisions
and lack of concern for earthquakes demonstrated by building owners, architects, and engineers—
directly leads to the weak implementation of seismic provisions for mechanical and electrical
systems. Since builders are already unconcerned about implementing these seismic provisions,
any absence of enforcement provides little incentive to comply with regulations. As a result, we
believe Colorado has a need for education programs for building inspectors (discussed in our
fourth recommendation in the following recommendations section). As discussed under
conclusion 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 earthquake
damage that result from implementation of seismic restraint for mechanical and electrical
systems. These education programs should not only demonstrate to inspectors the need for
seismic restraint, but also teach inspectors how to enforce seismic restraint provisions.
4. Most building owners, architects, and engineers do not perceive earthquake risk in
Colorado
The results of our research of building owners, architects, and engineers showed that most of
these 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 of
seismic restraint provisions for mechanical and electrical systems discussed in conclusion five
below. As outlined in our third conclusion above, the combination of this lack of perception of
risk with weak enforcement by building inspectors provides little incentive for builders to
comply with regulations. We feel the lack of perception of risk by the building community
shows a need for the following: 1. Education programs for engineers and contractors that
demonstrate 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 to
engineers-and contractors). This education program is discussed in our fourth recommendation
in the following recommendations section, while this research is described in our third
recommendation from that section of our report. As discussed in conclusion two, we feel the
minimal up front cost of this research and these education programs is justified because building
safety will be enhanced and economic costs resulting from a moderate earthquake will be
dramatically mitigated.
5. Building owners, architects, and engineers are generally unaware of the seismic restraint
provisions for mechanical and electrical systems of the Uniform Building Code
Additional results of our building owner, architect, and engineer research show that these groups
are generally unaware of the seismic restraint provisions for mechanical and electrical systems of
the Uniform Building Code. This unawareness is likely tied to both their unconcern for
earthquake activity (discussed in our fourth conclusion, above) and the weak enforcement of
these seismic provisions by building inspectors. It is quite difficult to have satisfactory
implementation of seismic restraint provisions if a building sector has minimal knowledge of
these provisions. As a result, we believe education programs for engineers and contractors are
needed in Colorado (discussed in our fourth recommendation on the following page). As
discussed in conclusion four, we feel the benefits of safety and damage mitigation tremendously
outweigh the relatively small cost of conducting these programs.
6. Seismic Safety Commissions in other states have been successful at mitigating seismic
risk
The key to both California and Utah's success at mitigating seismic risk is that both perceive
earthquakes to be a threat in their states. As a result, both California and Utah have adopted
Seismic Safety Commissions, which are the main authorities regarding seismic issues in their
states. These commissions have issued statewide plans outlining where the state is lacking in
seismic provisions and what needs to be done, as well as lobbied for and written seismic
legislation. In addition, they have played a key role in the adoption and enforcement of the
seismic 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 moderate
earthquake. For example, Utah is expected to incur $3.15 billion in damage to non-reinforced
buildings during their next fairly large earthquake. This damage could be prevented if seismic
provisions of the Uniform Building Code are enforced and implemented. Politicians in Utah
have been willing to continue to fund the Seismic Safety Commission in their state because they
believe its cost merits the benefits of improved safety and decreased economic impact from
earthquakes. Since the cost of these commissions is marginal compared to the benefits that can
be derived from them, we recommend they be implemented in any state with a history of
moderate or large earthquakes. As a result, we believe a Seismic Safety Commission could be
successful at mitigating seismic risk in Colorado and could be an integral part of initiating
enforcement and implementation of seismic restraint for mechanical and electrical systems in the
areas of Colorado with the greatest degree of seismic risk. This recommendation, as well as the
recommendation for further research into the costs and requirements for a Seismic Safety
Commission, is described in the recommendations section of our report.
16
Recommendations for the Implementation and Enforcement of Seismic Restraint for
Mechanical and Electrical Systems
We have produced four recommendations based on the conclusions described in the previous
section.
1. Creation of a Seismic Safety Commission
California and Utah each have a Seismic Safety Commission that is the main authority
concerning seismic issues in its state. This Commission is charged with writing seismic
regulations and assisting in the adoption and enforcement of seismic provisions of the Uniform
Building Code. The states in which these Commissions operate have been willing to pay the
relatively small cost to create and maintain these Commissions because the benefits of increased
safety and decreased economic loss that result from implementation of seismic restraint far
outweigh these costs. For example, Utah is expected to incur $3.15 billion in damage to nonreinforced buildings during their next fairly large earthquake. Therefore, we recommend that
Colorado create a Seismic Safety Commission that would be charged with setting seismic
standards and ensuring compliance. The Commission could be created via a legislative bill
sponsored by a legislative member, but could be written by a knowledgeable source oh seismic
issues. This bill would then have to be passed by the legislature. The following should be
included in the context of this bill: how many Commission members are needed, who qualifies as
Commission members, how Commission members should be appointed, to whom the
Commission should report, how the Commission shall be funded, and how much the
Commission will cost to create and operate. One possible scenario is for the Commission to be
under the jurisdiction of the Colorado Department of Natural Resources, in particular the State
Geologist. The State Geologist's knowledge of seismic activity and risks would be a primary
reason for this office to control the activity of the Seismic Safety Commission. We believe it is
advisable for at least one member of each of the following groups to be represented on the
Commission: architects, engineers, building code officials, and contractors. Another possibility
for the Commission is for it to report to and be overseen by a legislative committee. Finally, the
Commission will not come without a price. We were unable to determine the price of the
Seismic Safety Commission in Utah or California or how they were funded. However, unless
federal or private funding is available, the Commission would need to be funded either through
general tax revenues or an excise tax [25:18]. Further research is needed to properly determine
and justify the guidelines for the creation of a Seismic Safety Commission in Colorado. Our
third recommendation describes this and other research.
2. Formation of a Standard Set of Regulations for Focus Counties
We recommend that a standard set of regulations be made concerning the seismic restraint of
mechanical and electrical systems. This set of regulations would state what is required to meet
seismic code, who enforces the regulations, and who is to comply with them. We believe it is
advisable 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 are
those colored in red from Figure 2.2. The figure represents seismic danger by county in
Colorado, based on historical earthquake intensity and population. The Seismic Safety
Commission mentioned above could possibly draft and enforce these regulations. We also
recommend 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 this
standard set of regulations. These details include code requirements, persons responsible for
enforcement of the regulations, who must comply with the regulations, and in which area of the
state to begin instituting these regulations. We feel the cost of creating and maintaining this
standard set of regulations is well justified by the increased safety of building occupants and
decreased economic damage resulting from a moderate earthquake. By concentrating these
regulations on only a few areas of high risk, we feel the State of Colorado would be making a
cost-effective and prudent move. The application of regulations to focus counties limits the
scope 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, its
application 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, we
believe the benefits of increased safety and drastically decreased future earthquake damage merit
the relatively small upfront cost of forming this standard set of regulations.
3. Study of Earthquake Impacts and Seismic Safety Commission Requirements
In order to adequately merit the creation of a Seismic Safety Commission to draft and enforce
seismic safety provisions in the State of Colorado, we feel more research on the economic and
non-economic impacts of earthquakes is needed. It is advisable to focus this research on more
recent 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 regarding
earthquake risk. In addition, we feel further research is necessary to determine what is needed to
institute a Seismic Safety Commission in Colorado. Aspects of this research should include: the
Commission's structure (i.e. number of members; how members should be appointed; which
department, if any, the Commission should be under; and to whom the Commission should
report), how the Commission shall be funded, how much the Commission will cost to create and
operate, how the Commission should best be created, and the tasks the Commission should be
empowered to perform. The results of these studies could be used to help enforce and implement
seismic restraint provisions. Since increased enforcement and implementation of seismic
restraint has enormous safety and economic benefits, we believe the cost of conducting these
studies is well justified.
4. Seismic Education Programs for Focus Counties
Our final recommendation is to conduct seismic education programs in counties of Colorado
with the greatest degree of seismic risk. The studies that have been outlined in this report
indicate that there is a lack of awareness, compliance, and enforcement in the state of Colorado
of Chapter 16 of the Uniform Building Code. We suggest that seismic education conferences be
set up and made mandatory for all inspectors, engineers, and contractors who inspect or build
commercial, industrial, or government buildings. We believe these conferences should just focus
on these types of buildings because the seismic regulations of the Uniform Building Code
generally apply to just these buildings. In addition, focusing on these buildings will reduce the
overall cost of the education programs, while concentrating on an area where the greatest impact
on 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 with
the 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 of
Natural Resources may be able to conduct these conferences. These conferences should include
code seminars on the section of the Uniform Building Code that entails seismic restraint of
structures and mechanical and electrical equipment, with each inspector, engineer, or contractor
attending only what applies to his or her field of work (i.e. structural engineers attend a structural
session, while mechanical engineers attend a session on mechanical and electrical equipment).
These conferences should also contain seminars on the earthquake risks in Colorado, both
economic and non-economic. The study of earthquake impacts discussed in our third
recommendation above could be quite helpful in validating the need for these education
programs and supplying the necessary information about seismic risk to convince participants in
the building process that seismic restraint is necessary. Finally, these conferences won't come
without an economic cost to the State of Colorado. While we cannot determine the cost of these
seismic education programs, the study of earthquake impacts and seismic safety commission
requirements discussed above could be supplemented with a study of the costs and source of
funding 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 the
cost of creating and maintaining seismic education conferences will be largely outweighed by the
benefits of increased building occupant safety and mitigated economic costs from earthquakes,
which justifies the existence of these seismic education programs.
Summary
Each of these four recommendations is designed to increase enforcement and compliance of
seismic provisions for mechanical and electrical systems. While implementation of each would
afford the greatest opportunity for success, achievement of any one recommendation or
combination thereof would be better than no action at all. We feel that each action is justified
because the benefits of improved building occupant safety and drastically mitigated economic
damage far outweigh the cost of implementing these recommendations. Other states have
demonstrated their willingness to pay these costs in order to achieve the future benefits of
seismic restraint. An ideal sequence of implementation of these recommendations would be to
conduct the study of earthquake impacts and Seismic Safety Commission requirements, create a
Seismic Safety Commission, use the Seismic Safety Commission to form a standard set of
seismic regulations for focus counties, and finally create and conduct seismic education
programs in these focus counties.
19
ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY
Works Cited
[1] Briefing Paper 6, Part B: Design Example Using Current UBC Requirements. ATC/SEAOC
Joint Venture Training Curriculum.
Provided a picture of a mechanical and electrical system. Detailed seismic requirements of
the 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 Zone
Map of the United States.
[3] Dee, Stephen E. "A Review of Return Periods and Magnitudes of Earthquakes in the
Denver 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: A
Preliminary Evaluation. Colorado Geological Survey; Department of Natural
Resources, 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 county
map.
[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 Seismological
Laboratory, 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 sites
with 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 the
quake 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 in
California. This source provides very little detail.
[12] "Seismo-Watch Notable Earthquake: Whittier Narrows, California, M5.8
Earthquake," 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 brief
reports on other earthquakes.
[13] "Federal Emergency Management Agency," National Partnership for Reinventing
Government, http://www.npr.gov/library/reports/FEMA3 .html
(February 27, 2000).
This source is a FEMA report dealing with federal government expenditures on disaster relief
and ways to decrease these expenditures. Ways to do this include promoting disaster
preparedness 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 the
economics 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 also
provides 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 other
sites 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 Steel
Institute, 1962.
This source is a detailed report on the Agadir earthquake. It contains information on the
quake's seismological aspects and structural impacts. It also contains some general information
on 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: Earthquake
Engineering Research Institute, 1984.
Provided illustrations of earthquake damage to mechanical and electrical systems and a chart
of 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 Building
Codes", FEMA 313, January 1998.
Helped with our recommendations.
[26] Colorado Earthquake Project: Office of Emergency Management. "The State of
Colorado 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 Research
Center, 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 the
photos of damages caused by a specific earthquake enter the name of the earthquake on the query
form.
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 and
lists 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 Natural
Resources. 1981.
This had some good selections about the history, but some of them were to technical in terms
of 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 major
international cities.
J. A. Boore, G. Earle, and L. Apetkar, Psychological Effects of Disaster on Children
and 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 with
those in an earthquake. It has good information on the trauma to children.
The Economic Consequences of a Catastrophic Earthquake: Proceeding of a Forum
August 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 assessment
for the United States as well as analyzing methods of risk reduction. This source has a large
amount 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: The
Experience 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 Lenders
and the Earthquake Threat, Working Paper #49, University of Colorado Department of
Geography, February 1984.
Seismic Considerations for Communities at Risk, Developed by the Building Seismic Safety
Council for the Federal Emergency Management Agency, Washington
D.C., 1995,
Issued by FEMA in furtherance of the Decade for Natural Disaster Reduction.of the Decade
for Natural Disaster Reduction.
24
Natural Hazards Observer, Volume XXIV Number 2, November 1999.
Bowker, Mike, P.E. Mechanical Engineer, Planning and Construction, Plant Facilities, Colorado
School of Mines, Golden, CO. Personal interview and electronic correspondence, 2-8-00 and
2-9-00.
Provided both the insight of the Colorado School of Mines and of a mechanical engineer
regarding seismic restraint.
Griffin, Dane. Facilities Engineer, Corporate Express, Broomfield, CO. Personal interview, 2-2200.
Provided the insight of a building owner, but was not too familiar with building codes or
seismic 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, Sun
Microsystems, whose Broomfield facility is managed by Johnson Controls. Was more helpful
than 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 with
earthquake 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. Not
concerned 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 since
they focus on residential dwellings. Do not perceive active enforcement. Not concerned with
earthquake 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 for
mechanical and electrical systems. Does not see active enforcement, except in Denver.
Riegel, Don. Mechanical Engineer, Director of Engineering, Vector Engineering Services. Phone
interview, 2-24-00.
Insight of a mechanical engineer into the implementation of seismic restraint. Did not feel
much restraint was required in Colorado. Noted problem with implementation of seismic
provisions 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 an
engineer in the petroleum industry.
"Government Code Section 8871-8871.5," CA Codes, http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgibin/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 outline
of 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 seismicrelated.
"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 Safety
Commission, http://www.seismic.ca.gov/sscatr.htm. (2/20/00).
Did not use in report-gave a good overview of the California Earthquake Loss Reduction
Plan.
"Rule R156-56. Utah Uniform Building Standard Act Rules," Utah Administrative Code Rule
R156-56, 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 in
parts.
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 of
the seismic waves and is related to the amount of energy released; this energy can be
estimated from seismograph recordings. The magnitude scale is logarithmic, meaning a
magnitude 7.2 earthquake produces 10 times more ground motion than a magnitude 6.2
earthquake. In terms of energy, however, it releases about 32 times more energy. The
energy release best indicates the destructive power of an earthquake.
The Modified Mercalli Scale (M) measures intensity rather than magnitude. It measures
the effects of an earthquake at a particular place on humans, as well as structures. The
intensity at a point depends not only upon the strength of the earthquake (magnitude), but
also upon the distance from the earthquake to the epicenter and the local geology at that
point. The following table depicts a rough comparison of the two scales.
R
2-
Scales
M
3-
4-
5-
6-
7-
8-
Description of Earthquake
The majority of people do not feel the earthquake. Must have extremely favorable
conditions for motion to be detected.
II
Felt only by a few persons at rest, especially on upper floors of buildings. Delicately
suspended objects may swing.
Felt by persons on upper floors of buildings. Standing motor cars may rock slightly.
III
Vibration similar to the passing of a truck. Duration estimated.
IV
Felt outdoors by a few; at night, some awakened. Dishes, windows, and doors
disturbed. Cars rocked noticeably.
Felt by nearly everyone; many awakened. Some dishes, windows broken. Unstable
V
objects overturned. Pendulum clocks may stop.
VI
Felt by all, many frightened. Some heavy furniture moved. A few instances of fallen
plaster. Damage slight.
VII
Negligible damage in well constructed buildings; slight to moderate in ordinary
structures. Considerable damage in poorly built structures.
VIII 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 substantial
IX
buildings, with partial collapse. Buildings shifted off foundations.
Some well-built wooden structures destroyed; most masonry and frame structures
X
destroyed. Rails bent.
Few, if any masonry structures remain standing. Bridges destroyed. Rails bent greatly
XI
XII
Damage total. Line of sight distorted. Objects thrown into the air.
Source: Colorado Earthquake Project: Office of Emergency Management. The State Of Colorado
Five-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 and
electrical 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 and
electrical systems.
NONSTRUCTURAL COMPONENTS & ISSUES
ISSUE
LIFE
ECON
HAZARD LOSS
CO'MPONENT
FUNCT1ON STRUCT.
LOSS MODIF.
DESIGN &
SELECTION
RESPONSIBILITY*
MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT
SOURCE
Boilers
„ Chillers
, Air Handlers
Tanks
•- ,
. Heat Exchangers "
Pressure Vessels
_-.. Pumps
* "
. . Flues, Vents
O
0
O
O
0
O
O
0
.Roof Top* Packages
Heat Pumps
c
c
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
c .
O
0
O
O
0
O
• *O '
O O <
O
O
O
O
Wlndow UnitsDISTRIBUTION
Ducts
Pipes, Water
Pipes, Steam
TERMINALS
Celling D Iff users
O
O
O
Heaters, Oil
O
Switch Gear
Motors. Controls
TERMINALS
Outlets
Lighting
ME
MEME
ME
ME
ME
O
ELECTRICAL EQUIPMENT
Transformers
SOURCE
Conduit
Busbars, Wireways
'
ME'
ME
Floor, Wall Diffusers
DISTRIBUTION
ME
ME
ME
ME
ME
ME
ME
- ME
O
O
ME
ME
O
-
*A
E
ME
I
O
• potentially great
f) potentially moderate
O potentially small
ME
ME
ME
O
ME
ME
- architect '.- . '.-• '".:
"=•*" structural engineer
•• mech/elac. engineer
- Interior architect " "
- owner/manager
Source: Nonstmctural Issues of Seismic Design and Construction, Berkeley, CA: Earthquake
Engineering Research Institute, 1984, p. 10 [21].
29
Appendix C: Earthquake Property Damage
This appendix contains photographs of property damage caused by the four earthquakes
that were presented in detail in the body of the report. These photographs serve to
graphically illustrate the damage that moderate earthquakes can inflict.
Daly City, California Earthquake
Pilaster damage in Premium
Products Building in San
Francisco [27].
Collapsed footbridge at the Municipal Golf Course
in San Francisco [27].
Failure of ceramic veneer on the San
Francisco City College Science Building [27].
30
Overturned gravestone at the Eternal
Home Cemetery in Coma [27].
Whittier Narrows, California Earthquake
Car crushed by falling brick [27].
Chimney that has fallen through roof [27].
Column failure in May Company
parking garage [27].
Interior roof failure in May Company parking
garage [27].
31
Newcastle, Australia Earthquake
Collapsed Newcastle Workers Club. Site of nine
deaths and many injuries [16].
Damaged Hidden Treasure
Hotel [16].
Section of the Kent Hotel. Street had to be rebuilt [16].
Damaged George Hotel had to be demolished [16].
32
Agadir, Morocco Earthquake
Immeuble Consulaire office and apartment building before the
earthquake. Constructed with a reinforced concrete frame [19:39.].
Immeuble Consulaire after the earthquake. The picture on the right shows
stacks 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