identification of methods to achieve successful implementation of

Identification of Methods to Achieve Successful Implementation of Nonstructural and Equipment Seismic Restraints

John Masek, P.E., S.E., VIE Consultants Member EERI Robert Ridge, PhD Brigham Young University February 2009

EARTHQUAKE ENGINEERING RESEARCH INSTITUTE


Table of Contents Page 1

Table of Contents PageAcknowledgements i 1.0 Executive Summary 1 2.0 Background and Project Objectives 2 3.0 Methodology 5 3.1 Initial Definition of Focus Points Based on Research of Relevant Work by Others 5 3.2 Identification of Key Points to Investigate 5 3.3 Development of an Online Survey Using the Qualtrics Software 7 3.4 Data Gathering via the Internet with Qualtrics Software 7 3.4.1 Endorsement of Professional Organizations 7 3.4.2 Direct email Contacts to Individuals or Companies 7 3.4.3 Responses from Electronic Survey 8 3.5 Supplemental Data Gathering via Telephone Interviews 8 3.6 Data Gathering Confidentiality 8 4.0 Summary and Analysis of Electronic Survey Results 8 4.1 Overall Results, All Survey Groups 9 4.2 Structural Engineers 21 4.3 Building Code Officials 24 4.4 Architects 27 4.5 Contractors 29 4.6 Mechanical and Electrical Engineers 30 5.0 Summary and Analysis of Input and Specific Written and Verbal Information 30 6.0 Conclusions and High Priority Recommendations to Achieve Successful Implementation of Nonstructural Seismic Requirements

32

6.1 Educational Factors 33 6.2 Factors Related to Definition of Design Responsibility 34 6.3 Modification of the Financial Structure of Design Fees and Construction Bidding to Specifically Itemize Nonstructural Design and Construction Work

35

6.4 Modification or Adaptation of Existing Plan Review and Building Inspection Processes

36

6.5 Creation of Incentives for Compliance 38 6.6 Simplification of Current Code Provisions 38 6.7 Other Solutions 38 7.0 Recommendations for Further Research

39


Table of Contents Page 2

Table of Contents PageAppendix A Complete Qualtrics Report from Electronic Survey A-1 Appendix B Structural Engineers Electronic Survey B-1 Appendix C Building Code Officials Electronic Survey C-1 Appendix D Architects Electronic Survey D-1 Appendix E Contractor Electronic Survey E-1 Appendix F MEP Engineers Electronic Survey F-1 Appendix G Civil Engineers Electronic Survey G-1 Appendix H Facility Managers Electronic Survey H-1 Appendix I Catalog of Verbal Responses from Telephone Interviews I-1 Appendix J References J-1


i

Acknowledgements The authors wish to express their appreciation to the Earthquake Engineering Research Institute (EERI) for their support and funding of this project. In particular, the authors wish to thank Marjorie Greene and the members of the Special Projects Initiatives review panel for their support. The authors wish to also thank Brigham Young University staff for their support and use of their facilities for project meetings. The authors further recognize the important role the Qualtrics Company had in this project, especially for Dan Watkins’s expertise in adaptation of the Qualtrics software to the needs of this project. The authors acknowledge and appreciate the many professional organizations that supported this project through posting of survey contact information on their organization’s websites or in their e-newsletters. These organizations included EERI, the American Society of Civil Engineers/ Structural Engineering Institute, the American Institute of Architects, the American Society of Mechanical Engineers, the Building Owners and Managers Association, the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, the International Code Council, the Structural Engineers Association of California, and the Structural Engineers Association of Utah. Finally, we wish to thank the hundreds of professionals from the design and construction industry who participated in this project by sharing their experience and knowledge through their survey responses and helpful suggestions.


Page 1

1.0) Executive Summary The purpose of this research was to identify methods to bring about the proper design and construction of nonstructural and equipment seismic restraints as a matter of standard practice. To accomplish this objective, an in-depth study was done to identify the primary inhibiting and enabling factors affecting nonstructural seismic design and construction practices. Factors which were addressed included perceptions of current compliance with existing codes and standards; why compliance was lower than required by building codes; and who should be responsible for nonstructural seismic design and construction. The researchers also investigated economic factors, including identifying enabling factors, such as how to bring about the proper budgeting of nonstructural seismic work. Interdisciplinary communication gaps and resulting procedural problems among the owner, design team, code enforcement groups and the construction team were explored. By “implementation of nonstructural seismic restraints,” the authors are referring to all aspects of nonstructural seismic design and construction, including force-related requirements, deflection-related requirements, detailing provisions, construction practices, and inspection requirements in modern building codes and design standards. Over a period of 12 months, the authors conducted telephone interviews, in-person interviews, and gathered data using an online technical survey tool. These data-gathering efforts were done across the common disciplines that are involved in developing a building or facility project: including owners, designers, code enforcement professionals, equipment suppliers, contractors and others (collectively referred to as target respondent groups). These data were analyzed and considered in light of prior research by industry groups, government organizations, and other individuals who have studied this topic. Given the variability of professions, geographic regions, and types of projects from which these data were gathered, the consistency in the conclusions and recommendations was remarkable. There was consistent agreement that the current state of the practice for nonstructural seismic design and construction was not adequate, with agreement that noncompliance with current building codes occurred frequently. With this in mind, implementation of the recommendations given in this report is likely to have measurable and significant positive effects. Using data gathered from the target respondent groups, the authors identified 34 primary causative and corrective factors, which can be simplified into four categories: 1) educational factors; 2) factors related to definition of design responsibility; 3) factors related to plan review and building inspection processes; and 4) economic factors relating to design fees and construction costs. Survey respondents consistently emphasized the need for increased education across all groups: owners, designers, contractors, code enforcement professionals, and others, as well as the need to clearly define who is responsible for nonstructural seismic design. Stricter code enforcement, which was also recommended by


Page 2

several respondent groups, would be more effective if done concurrently with improved education.

The authors invite readers to analyze the substantial amount of data provided in this report and implement the recommendations that would be most effective in their communities, companies or professional groups. 2.0 Background and Project Objectives

Earthquake risk management and mitigation for nonstructural components of buildings and facilities have progressed significantly through developing better building codes, design guidelines and standards in the International Building Code (IBC), American Society of Civil Engineers/Structural Engineering Institute (ASCE/SEI) documents, and Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) design guides. At the onset of this research project, the authors proposed the possibility that many modern structures may have been constructed with little or inadequate attention given to proper seismic restraints of nonstructural items. Therefore, measurement of building code implementation success for nonstructural seismic requirements was one objective of this study. This was accomplished by surveying a wide group of people involved in the total design and construction process, from project conception to final completion. The primary issue addressed in this research was not further improvement in design standards, but rather how to achieve correct implementation of existing standards.

More than just quantifying the general extent to which noncompliance with nonstructural seismic requirements may exist, this study emphasized identification of possible causes for the deficiencies in nonstructural and equipment seismic restraint design and construction. Considerable attention has been given the topic of code enforcement and methods to document and enhance enforcement. However, the authors believed at the onset of research that this issue is more complex than heightened code enforcement. The authors also hypothesized that one cause is the problem of continuous delegation of responsibility to the point where, in the end, no one accepts responsibility or budgets for this important aspect of seismic design and construction. This type of behavior, known as diffusion of responsibility in the social science literature (Bickman, L., 1972), was postulated to be an important factor. Other root causes that have resulted in sporadic implementation of nonstructural seismic design standards, or none at all, have been explored.

In seeking solutions that are likely to have a positive impact on achieving correct implementation of nonstructural seismic design measures, it is important to recognize the fact that building or facility design and construction is a team endeavor. This team includes a variety of participants, with widely varied training and interests. These groups include the owner, architects, structural


Page 3

engineers, material suppliers, fabricators, erectors, subcontractors, and so forth. One aspect of the construction process that affects safety is that each project is a singular activity. That is to say, each construction project is unique in a myriad of ways. Therefore, the construction team may work together only once on a particular project and may work relatively independently of each other (Moses, 1998).

What factors may contribute to the lack of compliance with required building codes? Others have proposed that the highly fragmented construction process itself is a source of the problem (Moses, 1998). Especially prevalent when the construction is rushed and highly stressed, there may be a lack of complete communication between engineers, fabricators, and contractors. This lack of communication may contribute to a failure by one group to incorporate the plans of another group into the design or to report changes in the design to responsible parties.

Other factors related to these aforementioned concepts merit empirical attention. For example, it is a well-known principle in psychology that people’s perceived responsibility for engaging in any behavior is diluted to the extent that others are perceived to have some responsibility for acting. In other words, the more people there are who could engage in an action, the less responsible any one of them will feel for engaging in that action. This is another variant of diffusion of responsibility (Latané & Darley, 1970). In the realm of building construction, this principle refers to the idea that any of the construction team members may feel that it is the responsibility of other team members to ensure that nonstructural and equipment seismic restraints are installed; i.e., it’s not their job. To the extent that this perception is pervasive among group members, a process of “passing the buck” or continuous delegation may contribute to a lack of compliance with relevant codes. Another factor may be the perceived inconvenience in complying with the codes. An inconvenience that has received considerable empirical attention in research on individual household preparedness for earthquakes is cost (Kunreuther et al., 1978). The typical cost investigated has been earthquake insurance, and the research has shown that the high cost of insurance has had a detrimental effect on purchasing behavior (Palm et al., 1990; Sullivan et al., 1977). To the extent that the effects of cost on insurance purchase can be generalized to other mitigation strategies, it may be the case that failure to install nonstructural and equipment seismic restraints in buildings is due to the cost.

Cost is one of many possible implementation barriers to the adoption of hazard mitigation strategies. In addition, builders may be confronted with excessive time requirements involved in making seismic adjustments, the need to overcome physical implementation barriers, and a daunting amount of cooperation required from other people. Anderson (2000) found that such barriers are correlated with the failure to engage in household earthquake mitigation strategies.


Page 4

The extent that those involved in the building process perceive such barriers to be present may make it less likely that they will comply with seismic safety codes.

Other evidence in the psychological literature suggests that people are profoundly affected by what they perceive other people to be doing. In other words, normative information influences individual behavior. Normative information refers to the perception that others are or aren’t involved in a particular activity. For example, research has found that providing normative information indicating that everyone else is using less electricity has resulted in a reduction of individual electricity consumption by individual homeowners (Pallak, Cook, & Sullivan, 1980). Therefore, to the extent that members of the building team for a project believe that others are not complying with seismic safety codes, it can be expected there may be less conformance to nonstructural and equipment seismic design and construction requirements by other project team members as well.

To summarize, a variety of factors may contribute to the failure to incorporate nonstructural and equipment seismic restraints in completed buildings. These factors include a lack of communication between construction team members (Moses, 1998), diffusion of responsibility (Latané & Darley, 1970), cost (Kunreuther et al., 1978), other implementation barriers (Anderson, 2000), and normative beliefs (Donaldson, 1994, 1994). Other factors have also been identified in this research project and are summarized in this report. The presence and potential influence of these factors on decisions about whether or not to comply with seismic safety codes during the construction of buildings has not been adequately addressed in the literature. Such an investigation is both necessary and important.

The authors have intentionally avoided any detailed review or investigation of possible technical changes to building code requirements for nonstructural seismic design. A large amount of literature is available on this subject. The only aspect of this topic that was investigated was to query participants in the study as to their belief that the ambiguity or complexity of current code requirements was an implementation barrier. Related to this, the participants were queried as to their level knowledge of various current building codes and design standards.

The authors have deliberately not addressed the voluminous amount of data that clearly illustrates that nonstructural equipment damage does occur in earthquakes. The fact that nonstructural damage has consistently resulted in a significant portion of overall facility damage and interruption time is taken as a given, and is beyond the scope of this research project. Reference is made to earthquake damage investigations by the Earthquake Engineering Research Institute (EERI), the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), and others.


Page 5

3.0 Methodology

This research project includes findings from 301 practicing professionals in the “target groups” identified for study. The distribution of all survey respondents (organized by discipline and by survey method) is provided in Figure 3.1. Rather than focus on a single group with preconceived responsibility for certain aspects of nonstructural seismic design, the authors gathered data from a diverse group, with varying project responsibilities (in which respondents were allowed to self define what they thought their role was or should be). This diverse group of individuals was then surveyed to determine their thoughts on the current state of the practice for nonstructural seismic design. Surveys were conducted via telephone interviews, online electronic surveying, and several in-person interviews. Data from three states (California, Utah, and Washington) was targeted, although some respondents from other states and other countries also chose to respond. The survey focused on the following categories of professions or “target groups”: structural engineers, code enforcement professionals, architects, mechanical and electrical engineers, construction industry professionals, specialty contractors, equipment suppliers, developers, facility managers, facility owners, and grant reviewers at the state and federal levels. In addition, some survey respondents associated themselves with other groups, such as university professors, planners, permit counter managers, and others.

3.1 Initial Definition of Focus Points Based on Research of Relevant Work by Others

In order to establish important parameters to be included in the project, background information was gathered from recent related research by others, including ATC (2008), Hess (2008), and Petak (2008). These investigations found that certain factors emerged as clearly important, notably: the lack of clear definition of nonstructural design responsibility and the need for further education across all groups involved in building or facility design. The need for stronger enforcement has been suggested as a component, but not the complete answer to this issue.

3.2 Identification of Key Points to Investigate

Initially, 22 people known to the authors were interviewed by telephone or in person to identify primary topics to be included in the formal survey. The purpose of these inquires was to determine key factors to include in the electronic survey. This interaction led to development of the electronic survey using a software program known as Qualtrics (Qualtrics, 2008). This interaction also led to identification of possible methods to improve the state of the practice, which could then be ranked for their effectiveness by survey respondents.


Page 6

Figure 3.1: Distribution of Study Participants by Discipline

Totals Answer

Qualtrics Survey

Response

Qualtrics %

Telephone Interviews

Initial Survey

Develop-ment

number %

Facility manager/Owners/ Developers 10 5.3% 27 37 12.3

Architect 15 7.9% 10 25 8.3 Structural engineer 61 32.3% 8 69 22.9 Civil engineer 13 7.0% 13 4.3

Mechanical or Electrical engineer 6 3.2%

10

16 5.3

General contractor/ Subcontractors 10 5.3% 10 20 6.6

Equipment manufacturer 5 2.6% 10 15 5.0 Supplier or installer of specialty seismic bracing devices

1 0.5% 6 7 2.3

Building inspector/Plan reviewers/Building officials

36* 19.0% 7 43 14.3

University professor 2 1% 2 0.7 Other (In design/ construction industry, but not directly one of the above categories)

30* 15.9%

2

32 10.7

Others, during survey development 22 22 7.3

Totals 189 100% 90 22 301** 100% *16 of those who identified themselves as “other” were building code officials.


Page 7

3.3 Development of an Online Survey Using the Qualtrics Software

The online survey developed by the authors first asked respondents to provide descriptive information regarding their profession (including number of years practiced), education, state of residence, primary state where business is conducted, the type of structures with which they have experience, and personal exposure to earthquakes. They were then asked to indicate their familiarity with codes, design guidelines, and/or standards that govern the installation of nonstructural and equipment seismic restraints in buildings. They were also asked to explain the penalties for noncompliance with these standards.

In the next section of the survey, respondents were asked about their attitudes and opinions about nonstructural seismic safety standards, as well as their perceptions of others’ attitudes and opinions. They were then asked to provide their opinions as to who bears responsibility for compliance with these standards. Included in this section were questions regarding perceived compliance with the standards, such as how frequently or infrequently they are complied with. They also identified reasons why compliance has occurred in past construction projects, why noncompliance has occurred, and what might be done to increase compliance in the future (i.e., potential solutions). When possible, respondents from specific professions were directed to questions that asked about issues related to those professions. This enabled gathering of information from subsets within the sample.

3.4 Data Gathering via the Internet with Qualtrics Software

3.4.1 Endorsement of Professional Organizations

Once the survey was prepared, initial data-gathering efforts were focused on getting endorsements of the survey from professional organizations. These included the American Institute of Architects, the American Society of Mechanical Engineers, the American Society of Civil Engineers/Structural Engineering Institute, the Building Owners and Managers Association, the Earthquake Engineering Research Institute, the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, the International Code Council, the Structural Engineers Association of California, and the Structural Engineers Association of Utah. In addition, several national engineering design firms were helpful in providing input to the study.

3.4.2 Direct email contacts to individuals or companies

The authors supplemented survey exposure to target groups with direct email contacts. More than 2,000 such contacts were made across the target groups.


Page 8

3.4.3 Responses from Electronic Survey

The Qualtrics survey was conducted online over a period of seven months, and 222 individuals logged onto the survey site in this time frame. Of these, 189 responded to all or a sufficient portion of the survey questions to be usable for analysis. Survey results are given in Appendices A through H. An analysis of these results is provided in Section 4.

3.5 Supplemental Data Gathering via Telephone Interviews

Approximately 200 telephone inquiries were made, from which 90 interested parties that were willing to provide some level of usable input were identified. Inquiries from these brief telephone interviews were documented to supplement data from the survey. Information gathered in this way was intended to clarify conclusions from the electronic survey. No attempt was made to walk through the entire survey over the telephone. Individuals with telephone responses are not known to have also responded to the online survey, although some repetition may have occurred due to the wide publicity given to the survey.

This approach was also used to gather more data from target groups that did not have a large response in the electronic survey. This was necessary as some individuals stated that they were reluctant to complete the survey out of concern that responses could be tracked to them using the http address (which could have been done using Qualtrics, but was not done). Some respondents were also sensitive to the fact that some of the questions directly ask about conformance to building codes and punitive measures for noncompliance. Questions asked in the telephone interviews were less intimidating and generally were answered without concern. Data gathered from telephone interviews is given in Appendix I.

3.6 Data Gathering Confidentiality

The survey offered individuals the opportunity to provide their contact information if they chose to do so for follow up after completion of the project. Otherwise, respondent contact data was not gathered.

4.0 Summary and Analysis of Electronic Survey Results

There was broad agreement regarding which measures would be most effective in improved implementation of nonstructural seismic code provisions.

All groups agreed that there was not a clear definition of which discipline was or should be responsible for nonstructural seismic design. However, this does not mean that these disciplines agreed on which discipline was, or should be, responsible. Therefore, the need to define responsibility is a common recommendation, while defining who is responsible and how to assign this responsibility is an open question. In a similar manner, definition of responsibility for


Page 9

construction of nonstructural seismic anchorage and bracing was agreed upon as a need, but again, who should be responsible (general contractor, specialty contactor, or equipment supplier) was not agreed upon.

Similarly, there was broad agreement that education was the most likely measure that could lead to increased compliance with nonstructural seismic code requirements. Again, this agreement (on the concept of educational benefit) did not mean agreement existed regarding which group was in the most need of education and why. In fact, some groups (say group A) specifically stated that another group (group B) was poorly informed. However, group B actually rated itself as well informed.

In the view of the authors, these trends confirm the need for education and definition of design and construction responsibility across all groups.

Sections 4.1 through 4.6 provide an in-depth analysis of causative factors of deficiencies in nonstructural seismic design and construction practices, as reported by survey participants. Data were provided across all groups in Section 4.1, and then separated by five of the larger respondent groups in Sections 4.2 through 4.6. The reader is encouraged to study these data and trends, and draw additional supplemental conclusions which could improve the state of the practice.

4.1 Overall Results, All Survey Groups

The survey focused on three states, California, Utah, and Washington, although responses from other states or countries were not excluded. The distribution of responses to the electronic survey is shown in Figure 4.1.1.

Figure 4.1.1 Distribution of Qualtrics Survey Respondents by State # Answer* % 1 California 63% 2 Utah 17% 3 Washington 6% 4 Other 14% Total 100%

* Refer to Appendix A for more information on respondent demographics.


Page 10

The educational background of respondents was also measured. Typically respondents were highly educated, as shown in Figure 4.1.2.

Figure 4.1.2 Educational Background of Electronic Survey Respondents # Answer % 1 Less than high school 0% 2 High school graduate or equivalent 1%

3 Trade/Technical school graduate (please specify your area of study) 4%

4 Some college 12%

5 College graduate (please specify your major field of study) 41%

6 Post-graduate degree (master's, doctoral, other) (please specify your degree and area of study) 42%

Total 100%

Taken as a group, respondents had experience that spanned most common construction types, as shown in Figure 4.1.3. The survey did not specifically gather data on more specialized structures, such as DOE facilities (e.g. nuclear power plants), which are often subjected to very strict independent oversight.

Figure 4.1.3 Distribution of Design Experience, All Respondent Groups # Answer %* 1 Federal Government buildings 23% 2 Local or State Government buildings 48% 3 Emergency Services, Fire, Police 34% 4 Healthcare 41% 5 Utilities 27% 6 K-12 Schools 30% 7 Universities 35% 8 Office and Commercial 74% 9 Industrial 61% 10 Residential 66% 11 High Occupancy, Convention Centers 28% 12 Others 17%

*Note: respondents could choose multiple categories; therefore totals exceed 100%.


Page 11

The survey queried respondents concerning their knowledge of common building codes and design standards. The results, shown in Figure 4.1.4, are interesting from several perspectives. Firstly, respondents stated that they had a high degree of familiarity with seismic requirements in the International Building Code, yet a lower degree of familiarity with ASCE 7-05 (ASCE 2006-1). This illustrates overconfidence on the part of many respondents, in that ASCE 7-05 is referenced in the International Building Code (ICC, 2006) for most of the nonstructural seismic design requirements. As expected, building code and design standard familiarity did vary by discipline, and this is analyzed in Appendices B through H. Respondent familiarity with provisions for seismic analysis and retrofit design for existing facilities in ASCE 31-03 (ASCE 2003) and ASCE 41-06 (ASCE 2006-2) was generally low. This is an important finding, in that retrofit design of existing facilities must also include retrofit of nonstructural items to be fully effective. Familiarity with National Fire Protection Association Code (NFPA, 2007) provisions was low across most disciplines. This is also significant, in that seismic design of firewater systems is an important component of overall building or facility safety.

Figure 4.1.4: Respondent Familiarity with Modern Building Codes and Design Standards Percent Responding to Each Level of Familiarity

by Code or Standard

Question: Level of Familiarity With the Listed Codes or Standards

1- Not at all familiar

2- Somewhat

familiar

3- Moderately

familiar

4- Very

Familiar

5- Extremely

familiar

Mean

The International Building Code 4 8 23 48 17 3.6

ASCE 7-05 (Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and Other Structures)

22 14 20 28 16 3.0

ASCE 31-03 (Seismic Evaluation of Existing Buildings)

39 24 19 14 4 2.2

ASCE 41-06 57 19 12 8 4 1.8 NFPA 52 28 10 9 1 1.8


Page 12

Related to code and design standard familiarity, respondents were also asked if they knew of Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA 2004-1, 2004-2, 2007) guidelines that could be used as a basis for nonstructural risk assessment or retrofit needs assessment. The results, which were fairly consistent across all disciplines, showed a lack of familiarity with existing FEMA design guides. This finding, also shown in Figure 4.1.5, confirms one of the primary study findings: Better education about nonstructural design requirements (and available resources to meet those requirements) is needed.

Figure 4.1.5: Familiarity with FEMA Nonstructural Design Guides # Answer %

1 Yes 33%

2 No 67% Total 100%

The level of importance of nonstructural seismic design requirements to respondents was measured. As the trend diagram in Figure 4.1.6 indicates, most respondents considered nonstructural seismic retrofit to be very important. However, this conclusion should be qualified, in that those who choose to take the time to respond to the electronic survey (and for that matter the telephone interviews outlined in Appendix I) would be expected to have a higher level of interest in this topic. Discovering the level of knowledge of the larger group of individuals who were contacted, but choose not to respond (or stated in verbal interviews that the topic of nonstructural seismic bracing was not important to them) is a subject for further research. However, even without such research being done, it is reasonable to suggest that the results of this study may overstate the level of knowledge and the level of interest in the target groups at large. This conclusion was consistent with the thinking of respondents also. Figure 4.1.7 illustrates the level of importance respondents thought that their peers had for this subject. Another explanation for this trend exists in published research in psychology, showing that people tend to overestimate the uniqueness of their good or desirable attitudes and opinions, while underestimating those of others (Goethals, Messick, & Allison, 1991). This may also be a contributing factor to why respondents tended to believe that nonstructural seismic design safety was more important to them than it was to others.


Page 13

Figure 4.1.6: Stated Importance of Nonstructural Design and Construction, All Groups

Figure 4.1.7: The Level of Interest Respondents Thought Their Peers Placed on Nonstructural Seismic Design and Construction Implementation

It has been reported (Petak, 2008) that one possible cause for inadequate implementation of existing nonstructural seismic design standards is that the project team members (from owner to designers to contractors) are not certain (or even have conflicting views of) who is responsible for this work. The survey asked respondents to rank order who was responsible for being familiar with nonstructural seismic safety standards by profession. While Figure 4.1.8 trends towards architects and structural engineers, and to a lesser degree mechanical and electrical engineers, no clear concurrence exists.


Page 14

Figure 4.1.8 Ranking of Relative Responsibility for Nonstructural Seismic Safety by Group Cumulative Ranking of Relative Responsibility for Nonstructural Seismic Safety as Ranked by All Respondent Groups

Group Providing Ranking Opinions Trend Diagram Illustrating Summary of Responsibility Ranking

1 Architect

2 Structural engineer

3 Civil engineer

4 Mechanical engineer

5 Electrical engineer

6 General contractor

7 Building subcontractor

8 Equipment manufacturer

9 Equipment supplier

10

Supplier or installer of specialty seismic bracing devices

11 Building inspector

12 Building plan reviewer

13 Construction project manager

14 Overall design project manager

15 Other, please specify*

*Respondents were asked if anyone other than those listed was responsible. See Appendix A.


Page 15

A similar, but slightly different, question was asked: Who has the ultimate responsibility for implementation of seismic safety provisions. In this case, there was also no concurrence, but three groups — building inspectors, architects, and structural engineers — were thought to have the ultimate responsibility. These results, measured against the perceived responsibility by the three groups designated, are interesting. This is especially true in the case of building inspectors, who almost universally believed that the ultimate responsibility resided with either the architect or the structural engineer, but not plan reviewers or building inspectors. In other words, others (especially contractors) believed building inspectors are ultimately responsible, but these same building inspectors did not agree! The authors suggest that building inspectors do not and should not have the ultimate responsibility for this work. The important point, though, is that many respondents believe that they are ultimately responsible. Figure 4.1.9 Respondent Ranking of the Ultimate Responsibility for Nonstructural Seismic Safety # Answer %

1 Architect 22%

2 Structural engineer 18%

3 Civil engineer 2%

4 Mechanical engineer 1%

5 Electrical engineer 0%

6 General contractor 5%

7 Building subcontractor 1%

8 Equipment manufacturer 0%

9 Equipment supplier 1%

10 Supplier or installer of specialty seismic bracing devices

2%

11 Building inspector 27%

12 Building plan reviewer 1%

13 Construction project manager 4%

14 Overall design project manager 7%

15 Other 8%

Total 100%


Page 16

Given the confusion about who is ultimately responsible for seismic safety of nonstructural items, it would not be surprising to find that this work is not always done, or if done, is done incorrectly.

The trend diagram in Figure 4.1.10 is somewhat surprising in its negative view of the as-built condition of modern buildings or modern retrofit projects.

Figure 4.1.10 Trend Diagram for the Frequency of Compliance with Nonstructural Seismic Safety Provisions


Page 17

Given, therefore, that noncompliance with existing seismic safety provisions is a concern of significance, inquiries were made of respondents as to why this was the case. The results of these inquires are summarized in Figure 4.1.11.

Figure 4.1.11 Reasons for Noncompliance and Their Relative Importance; Summary from All Respondent Groups

Answer % No one is adequately trained to make sure the standards are complied with. 44%

There is little regulatory enforcement of compliance with the standards. 42%

No one knows who is ultimately responsible for compliance. 40% There is a communication breakdown between everyone involved in constructing the building that contributes to noncompliance.

35%

It is too expensive to comply with the standards. 35% Compliance just falls through the cracks. 33% Everyone just assumes someone else will make sure that compliance occurs. 31%

Everyone passes the buck to someone else, so compliance doesn't occur. 26%

The standards are too difficult to understand. 25% There is little incentive to comply with the standards. 23% Penalties for noncompliance aren't severe enough to make compliance a high priority. 20%

It is too time consuming to comply with these standards. 17% There is a lack of compensation for oversight compliance. 15% The likelihood of a damaging earthquake in this area is too low to justify complying with the standards. 13%

The standards are poorly designed. 12% No one is really interested in making sure the standards are complied with. 11%

It's not against the law to fail to comply with the standards; compliance will happen when it's the law. 11%

No one is qualified to certify compliance. 9% The likely consequences of an earthquake in my area are too minimal to justify the cost and effort of compliance. 8%

I have never seen compliance. 3% There are liability concerns that prevent compliance. 2%

(Note: Respondents can select and rank more than one choice.)


Page 18

The respondents were then asked to identify and rank possible solutions to the problems that are impeding successful implementation of existing nonstructural seismic design standards. These recommendations and their relative importance are given in Figure 4.1.12.

Figure 4.1.12 Recommendations for Bringing About Successful Implementation of Nonstructural Seismic Design Provisions; Summary from All Respondent Groups Answer %

Better education of design professionals could lead to good design and construction practices. 81%

Better education of contractors and equipment suppliers could lead to good design and construction practices.

71%

Better education of owners could lead to good design and construction practices. 57%

Stricter building code enforcement could lead to good design and construction practices. 48%

Better public education of hazards posed by nonstructural items in an earthquake could lead to good design and construction practices.

47%

New technical provisions in the building codes; i.e., improvement in the technical requirements, could lead to good design and construction practices.

45%

Financial incentives, such as reduced insurance costs, could lead to good design and construction practices. 40%

Better internal quality control by design professionals could lead to good design and construction practices. 39%

Design fees specifically allocated to this work could lead to good design and construction practices. 37%

Fairer enforcement of standards across all projects could lead to good design and construction practices. 22%

Punishment of design professionals and contractors or others associated with noncompliant buildings or facilities could lead to good design and construction practices.

20%

The creation of a new system, with specific professional licensing requirements for this type of work, could lead to good design and construction practices.

18%

More federal grants for mitigation of nonstructural hazards during remodels could lead to good design and construction practices.

11%

(Note: Respondents can select and rank more than one choice.)


Page 19

Related to these recommendations, survey respondents agreed that a very clear definition of which party in the design and construction team is responsible for implementation of nonstructural seismic design provisions is needed. As shown in Figure 4.1.14, this factor was rated as having a medium or high likelihood of being an important provision that would lead to success by most respondents. Other factors that most respondents rated as having a medium or high success potential were (1) providing more detailed design standards, (2) requiring equipment suppliers to design and install nonstructural seismic anchorage and bracing for their equipment, and (3) stricter enforcement of current standards (Figures 4.1.15 and 4.1.16) .

Figure 4.1.14 Effectiveness of Clearly Defining Who is Responsible for Compliance with Seismic Design Requirements for Nonstructural Items 52% 44% 4%

High Medium Low

Related to increased education, respondents strongly agreed that more detailed design standards would be very helpful in increasing compliance with current seismic design provisions. When queried further through supplemental telephone interviews, this suggestion was clarified. The “detailed provisions” requested refer to technical documents similar to the Sheet Metal and Air Conditioning Contractor’s National Association Provisions (SMACNA, 2000), with detailed engineering drawings, design load tables, etc. As discussed in Section 4, most respondents were unaware of FEMA documents such as FEMA 412, FEMA 413, and FEMA 414 (FEMA 2004-1, 2004-2, 2005). Those who were aware of these documents often felt they were too general and that more specificity was needed.


Page 20

Figure 4.1.15 Effectiveness of Providing Detailed Design Standards to Assist in the Process of Complying with Nonstructural Seismic Design Provisions. 49% 41% 10%

High Medium Low

Figure 4.1.16 Effectiveness of Stricter Enforcement of Current Standards

68% 28 % 4%

High Medium Low


Page 21

4.2 Structural Engineers

Structural engineers (SEs) were viewed as one of the top three professions that should have the ultimate responsibility for nonstructural seismic design and verification of correct construction. It is therefore instructive to examine what in fact structural engineers believe their role is, and what structural engineers think the issues associated with nonstructural seismic design are, and how they should be addressed. Many respondents stated that the structural engineer is the responsible party for nonstructural seismic design. This view is reinforced in some geographic areas, such as in California, where administrative code requirements require a structural engineer to perform and stamp nonstructural seismic calculations and drawings for critical facilities, such as hospitals. However, interviews with structural engineers and code enforcement professionals confirm that while strict and clear provisions also exist in the building codes for most other (i.e., nonessential) structures, the enforcement of these provisions is not as strict, nor is a structural engineer necessarily engaged to perform the design work for “nonessential” buildings (i.e., an importance factor less than 1.5) (ICC, 2006). As a group, structural engineers felt that compliance with nonstructural seismic design provisions was not uniform. In fact, no structural engineers surveyed felt the provisions were always complied with, either in California or elsewhere (Figure 4.2.1). In addition, nearly half stated they personally knew of buildings constructed in a manner which did not comply with current code provisions (Figure 4.2.2).

Figure 4.2.1 Structural Engineers Estimation of Compliance Frequency # Answer % 1 1- never complied with 2% 2 2- sometimes complied with 53% 3 3- usually complied with 45% 4 4- always complied with 0% Total 100%


Page 22

Figure 4.2.2 Percent of Structural Engineers Who Were Aware of New Construction Not in Full Compliance with Building Code Provisions for Nonstructural Seismic Anchorage and Bracing

Structural engineers were asked to rank factors that could lead to compliance with current nonstructural seismic design provisions. The results of this query are given in Figure 4.2.3, and do in fact differ somewhat from the results for the respondent group in total. Structural engineers again rank education as a top factor for increasing successful implementation. However, providing adequate design fees for nonstructural seismic design was the second highest factor in the opinion of structural engineers. By inference, it may be stated that many structural engineers do not believe their current fees are adequate for this work and/or that their design contracts do not specifically require them to do this part of the design.


Page 23

Figure 4.2.3 Structural Engineers’ Ranking of Factors That Would Lead to Successful Nonstructural Seismic Design Implementation

Answer % Better education of design professionals could lead to good design and construction practices. 73%


Better education of contractors and equipment suppliers could lead to good design and construction practices.

68%

Stricter building codes enforcement could lead to good design and construction practices. 57%




41%



20%

Fairer enforcement of standards across all projects could lead to good design and construction practices. 18%

Punishment of design professionals and contractors or others associated with noncompliant buildings or facilities could lead to good design and construction practices.

18%


7%

Other 7% (Note: Respondents can select and rank more than one choice.)

With regard to education, structural engineers clearly point to the individuals or companies they most commonly have contracts with, i.e., architects and owners, as the parties that would most benefit from additional education concerning nonstructural seismic bracing (Figure 4.2.4).


Page 24

Figure 4.2.4: Structural Engineers View of Which Groups Most Require Additional Education Concerning Nonstructural Seismic Provision

Answer %

Architect 27%

Owner 27%

Other* 10%

Structural engineer 8%

General contractor 8%

Supplier or installer of specialty seismic bracing devices 8%

Building plan reviewer 4%

Construction project manager 4%

Overall design project manager 4%

Total 100% *See Appendix B for further information.

4.3 Building Code Officials

The only building code officials who responded to the electronic survey were from California. Their responses were obtained through support of the ICC in California. This information was supplemented with the verbal responses in Appendix I. Building code officials from other states did respond to telephone interviews. As shown in Figure 3.1, building code professionals represented the second largest group of respondents. As also shown in Figure 4.3.1, most building code officials believed that nonstructural seismic restraints were important.

Figure 4.3.1 Importance of Nonstructural Seismic Design to Building Code Officials


Page 25

As documented in Appendix C, building code officials reported very high (90%) familiarity with seismic design standards for nonstructural items and overwhelmingly (88%) believed that nonstructural damage was more likely to occur than building collapse in a moderate earthquake. Building code officials also felt that architects and structural engineers were the primary parties responsible for nonstructural seismic design (Figure 4.3.2). Building code officials felt that the two parties (really the only parties) with sufficient knowledge of nonstructural seismic bracing needs were structural engineers and building code officials (Figure 4.3.3). Furthermore, building code officials reported that the two groups most in need of additional education concerning nonstructural seismic requirements were architects and various other disciplines in the construction industry (Figure 4.3.4). This leads the authors to suggest that the use of generalized seismic bracing requirements in “standard” specifications (which are not designed by a structural engineer) may be an incomplete way to achieve a satisfactory result in the constructed facility. Clearly, building code officials would prefer that the work be designed by structural engineers.

Figure 4.3.2 Rating of Which Design Discipline Should Have Primary Responsibility for Nonstructural Seismic Design by Building Code Officials in California

Answer % Architect 47% Structural engineer 35% Civil engineer 6% General contractor 6% Overall design project manager 6% Total 100%

Figure 4.3.3 Rating of Which Disciplines are the Most Knowledgeable Regarding Nonstructural Seismic Design by Building Code Officials in California

Answer % Structural engineer 35% Building plan reviewer 29% Architect 12% Civil engineer 6% Mechanical engineer 6% Building inspector 6% All Others 6% Total 100%


Page 26

Figure 4.3.4 Building Code Officials’ Views of Groups That Would Most Benefit from Additional Education Concerning Nonstructural Seismic Bracing Requirements

Answer % Architect 35% General contractor 24% Construction project manager 18% Equipment supplier 11% Civil engineer 6% Equipment manufacturer 6% Total 100%

Building code officials in California had a different view (from the respondent groups as a whole) of the current state of the practice for nonstructural seismic bracing, and also differing views on how to correct any deficiencies that did or did not exist. Specifically, building code officials (from California) believed noncompliance to be rare. This group thought that the two most successful strategies to increase compliance would be to require equipment manufacturers or installers to perform this work (Figure 4.3.5) and to increase enforcement levels. (Refer to Appendix C.) In a somewhat contradictory view, building code officials did not view having a specific bid item for nonstructural seismic bracing work to be very effective.

Figure 4.3.5 Building Code Officials’ Highest Rated Factor to Improve Nonstructural Seismic Bracing; Requiring Equipment Suppliers and Installers to Perform Seismic Bracing Work 75% 17% 8%

High Medium Low


Page 27

4.4 Architects

An extensive outreach to architects to provide input to this study was made through the AIA in California, Utah, and Washington. The AIA was very supportive and provided links to the study on their websites and by other means. In addition, hundreds of architects were contacted through direct email methods. However, responses from architects were difficult to obtain. Analyses of architects’ responses to the electronic survey should consider the possibility that architects who showed interest in the study may be more knowledgeable about requirements for nonstructural seismic bracing than architects in aggregate. Of the architects that responded to the survey, the view that architects (and secondly structural engineers) were actually the most knowledgeable concerning nonstructural seismic bracing was expressed. This response differs from all other groups (Appendix D).

Architects in the electronic survey and in telephone interviews expressed cost concerns more than any other group, with the exception of contractors. Also, in telephone conversations there were concerns expressed by several architects that the existing standards were both difficult to understand and excessive. Nonetheless, for the architects who did respond to the electronic survey, nonstructural seismic design was considered to be important (Figure 4.4.1). This same respondent group believed that enhanced enforcement of existing codes combined with more detailed and useful design guides would be successful measures (Figures 4.4.2, 4.4.3).

Figure 4.4.1 Importance of Nonstructural Seismic Bracing for Architects


Page 28

Figure 4.4.2 Architects’ Rating of the Effectiveness of Enhanced Enforcement of Current Standards

# Answer % 1 High probability of increasing compliance 75%

2 Medium probability of increasing compliance 25%

3 Low probability of increasing compliance 0%

Total 100%

Figure 4.4.3 Architects Rating of the Effectiveness of Providing More Detailed Design Standards # Answer % 1 High probability of increasing compliance 75%


3 Low probability of increasing compliance 0% Total 100%

Survey results regarding the views of architects are not conclusive, in light of the modest sample size, especially in relationship to the dominant role architects typically have in the design process. Whether or not architects, as a group, actually have a low level of interest in nonstructural seismic design (as is indirectly implied by poor survey response rates) should be investigated in further research, possibly as a component of continuing education courses on this subject.


Page 29

4.5 Contractors

The electronic survey results and telephone interviews of contractors resulted in several common themes. Generally, in their view, nonstructural seismic bracing and anchorage will occur if clearly shown on contract documents, in a way that can be properly estimated by either the general contractor or the appropriate subcontractors installing the subject nonstructural items. The vaguer the documents are, the less likely that correct construction will occur, and the more likely a change order will occur if enforcement is stressed or forced by building officials. Contractors tended to believe that the building inspector should be responsible, concerning conformance to nonstructural seismic design requirements (Figure 4.5.1). The authors found that most contractors expressed a willingness to do work that conformed to current codes, if this information was clearly shown on design documents. Furthermore, some contractors stated that their personal knowledge (about what is actually required by ASCE 7-05 and other codes) could actually be a disadvantage in the bid process, since other contractors (who may be less knowledgeable) might underestimate the cost of the work and win the bid.

Figure 4.5.1 Contractors’ Views of Nonstructural Seismic Design Responsibility Answer % Building inspector 57% Architect 14% Structural engineer 14% Overall design project manager 14% Total 100%

Contractors did believe that stronger enforcement, including withholding of certificates of occupancy, use of fines, and other punitive measures, would be effective. The use of such punitive measures was given a lower likelihood of success by most design professionals (Figure 4.5.2).

Figure 4.5.2 Effectiveness of Punitive Measures for Noncompliance in the Opinion of Contractors

# Answer % 1 High probability of increasing compliance 50%


3 Low probability of increasing compliance 17% Total 100%


Page 30

4.6 Mechanical and Electrical Engineers

Mechanical and electrical engineers are often the key individuals in the design team with respect to the type of equipment specified in buildings or facilities. Yet, the training of these professionals (with ME or EE degrees) often does not really address seismic design. In the view of the authors, it may be unreasonable, therefore, to expect these professionals to be responsible for seismic design. In telephone interviews, mechanical and electrical engineers were almost without exception aware that certain seismic requirements did exist. If they were instructed to perform this work, various strategies were used:

• Hiring a specialty design consultant (usually a structural engineer);

• Hiring a company that provided design services as a package with purchase of equipment, such as vibration isolators;

• Using “standard” details from industry sources, such as SMACNA (SMACNA, 2000).

For the electronic survey respondents, the mechanical engineers did typically believe that seismic design was their responsibility. However, in conflict with this finding, the mechanical and electrical engineers in telephone interviews did not typically view seismic design as their responsibility by default, just because they specify the equipment. In fact, several engineers commented that such a design would require knowledge about structural member capacities (that the mechanical and electrical engineer would not have direct knowledge of).

5.0 Summary and Analysis of Input and Specific Written and Verbal Information

The results of this project point conclusively to several related categories of corrective measures to bring about successful implementation of existing nonstructural seismic design provisions to occur. Some of the groups that were either difficult to contact for the electronic survey or were reluctant to respond to the survey for various reasons were given more attention in telephone calls. Some key supplemental findings obtained from telephone interviews are summarized herein.

There was a tendency of owners to trust their design professionals, even if they were unsure about exactly what was required for nonstructural bracing. Sophisticated owners, such as representatives of schools, hospitals and public utilities, were very aware of the need to properly anchor and brace nonstructural items, regardless of which state they were from.


Page 31

Architects’ responses were similar to the electronic survey for the most part. Some architects in the telephone interviews were more candid in their belief that nonstructural seismic requirements were either overly conservative or unnecessarily complex. Contractors expressed willingness to correctly implement nonstructural seismic measures, but often stated that general design details were unclear, very difficult to quantify, and therefore nearly impossible to accurately bid. Several contractors suggested creation of or use of a separate specifications section devoted to nonstructural seismic requirements. Bids for nonstructural seismic bracing could then correspond to this specification section. In California, plan reviewers expressed a high degree of confidence in the correctness of nonstructural seismic work for critical facilities, such as hospitals. However, plan reviewers in other states were less confident. In fact, plan reviewer comments made in the telephone interviews disclosed that some are actually under pressure to not carefully review nonstructural seismic provisions. Mechanical engineers often preferred to rely on design services provided by companies that also provided other equipment, such as vibration isolators (rather than do the design work themselves.) Mechanical engineers reported that this aspect of their work was rarely reviewed, if the facility was not critical.


Page 32

6.0 Conclusions and High-Priority Recommendations to Achieve Successful Implementation of Nonstructural Seismic Requirements

Figure 6.1 restates the high-priority problem areas selected by survey participants (greater than 25% stating that the items were a major concern).

Recommendations given in Sections 6.1 through 6.7 were developed by expanding upon the general concepts presented in Figures 6.1 and 6.2, in conjunction with interpretation of written respondent responses (contained in Appendices A through H), utilization of telephone interview results from Appendix I, and consideration of research by others. The authors believe that each one of these recommendations should be vetted through a peer review process, which could then result in the most effective implementation, considering local jurisdictional factors and project-specific variables.

Figure 6.1 Highest Priority Reasons for Noncompliance and Their Relative Importance; Summary including All Respondent Groups

Problem Area or Issue Inhibiting Compliance with Nonstructural Seismic Code Requirements, as Rated by Respondents

% rating as very high-priority problem area

No one is adequately trained to make sure the standards are complied with. 44%

There is little regulatory enforcement of compliance with the standards. 42%

No one knows who is ultimately responsible for compliance. 40% It is too expensive to comply with the standards. 35% There is a communication breakdown among everyone involved in constructing the building that contributes to noncompliance. 35%

Compliance just falls through the cracks. 33% Everyone just assumes someone else will make sure that compliance occurs. 31%

Everyone passes the buck to someone else, so compliance doesn't occur. 26%

The standards are too difficult to understand. 25%


Page 33

Respondents likewise ranked solutions that they considered to be potentially very effective. Figure 6.2 summarizes the highest priority corrective measures recommended by respondents to the electronic survey, which were also confirmed by telephone interviews.

Figure 6.2 Highest Priority Recommendations for Bringing about Successful Implementation of Nonstructural Seismic Design Provisions; Summary including All Respondent Groups Possible Solutions to Increase Compliance with Nonstructural Seismic Code Requirements, as Rated by Respondents

% rating as a very effective solution

Better education of design professionals could lead to good design and construction practices. 81%

Better education of contractors and equipment suppliers could lead to good design and construction practices. 71%


Stricter building code enforcement could lead to good design and construction practices. 48%

Better public education about hazards posed by nonstructural items in an earthquake could lead to good design and construction practices. 47%

New technical provisions in the building codes, i.e., improvement in the technical requirements, could lead to good design and construction practices.

45%




6.1 Educational Factors

The need for increased education was rated as a top priority by nearly every respondent group. Recommendations to accomplish this objective are:

a) Utilize the existing continuing education requirements for engineers, architects, and contractors to substantially increase the state of knowledge of what current seismic design requirements are. Recent reports by others (ATC, 2008) also make this recommendation. These continuing education courses must be tailored to the audience, and in fact should probably be quite different courses for structural engineers, other engineers (civil, mechanical,


Page 34

and electrical), architects, and contractors. In the opinion of the authors, to be effective, these courses should be very visual. Photographs of equipment, piping, and other nonstructural items should be used as examples, with installed nonstructural seismic restraint system solutions presented.

b) Encourage nonstructural seismic design topics be included in educational courses at universities and colleges.

c) Work with engineering, architecture, and contractor licensing entities to make testing on nonstructural seismic requirements a topic treated in appropriate depth on licensing exams.

d) Professional organizations, such as EERI or the structural engineering associations of each state, could assist in the educational effort through making presentations at conferences for the AIA, ASME, IEEE, ICC, and others.

e) A fairly consistent theme, suggested by several respondent groups, was that the availability of more detailed design standards would be helpful. As demonstrated in the data in Appendices A though H, many groups did not know of the many such standards or design guides that already exist. Conveying the availability (and proper use of) these documents by FEMA and industry groups (SMACNA, NFPA, and others) should be a part of the educational process.

f) Organizations such as SEAOC could develop design guides for nonstructural bracing to a similar level of detail available in design guides for structural design (SEAOC, 2006).

6.2 Factors Related to Definition of Design Responsibility

The authors found evidence to support our hypotheses regarding barriers to nonstructural seismic safety design implementation. Specifically, a sizeable proportion of our respondents reported that the lack of communication among everyone involved in the construction of a building contributes to noncompliance with nonstructural seismic safety standards, illustrating the lack of communication described by Moses (1998) and Petak (2008). Moreover, respondents asserted that no one really knows who is ultimately responsible for code compliance, and that more often than not, everyone simply assumes that someone else will or should be responsible. This reflects the diffusion of responsibility so commonly found in psychological studies of social activity (e.g., Bickman, 1972). Thus, establishment of a clear chain of responsibility for nonstructural seismic design was identified as a top priority, second only to increased education, in terms of potential effectiveness. Further study of this problem area is merited. A few possible solutions were identified in this study:

a) The respondents to the survey did not rate highly the concept of a separate certification for nonstructural seismic design. Nonetheless, the authors believe this concept merits further study. Nonstructural seismic design requires basic knowledge of a number of factors that span


Page 35

multiple disciplines: engineering mechanics, structural engineering, and some knowledge of mechanical and electrical engineering, architecture, and even facility management and maintenance. It can be asserted that not everyone who has a license in any one of these disciplines is automatically qualified to perform nonstructural seismic design. One successful model that clearly defines responsibility is the requirement in California that only a licensed structural engineer (SE) can perform nonstructural seismic design for critical facilities, such as hospitals. However, it can also be asserted that this requirement (SE certification) for all classes of structures in all states is more stringent than necessary. Further study of the concept of a specific certification for nonstructural seismic design is therefore recommended. One possible model would be a nonstructural seismic design certification, which would require a base certification of licensure, such as a PE or AIA. This process could be administered by the appropriate State licensing board. Separate testing and licensure would then be required for nonstructural seismic design. In the view of the authors, an SE licensee should not require further testing, but the formality of certification should exist. While this is just one possible model, it would result in a clear system, where only a professional with the required certification could perform the work.

b) If the mandatory certification concept encounters administrative or legal barriers in a particular community, alternate approaches could be proposed. For example, a nonstructural seismic design certification could be available based on certain educational or testing criteria established by professional organizations, such as structural engineering groups (e.g. SEI, SEAOC, etc.), ASCE, AIA, ASME, IEEE, or others. This certification (which in this case would not be mandatory) could be used by professionals as a means of alerting clients to the importance of nonstructural seismic design and concurrently demonstrating their competency to do the required work.

c) From a contractor’s perspective, there was also no clear definition of responsibility for nonstructural seismic work. Several general contractors did state that they expected their specialty subcontractors for mechanical and electrical equipment, interior finishes, etc., to be responsible for nonstructural seismic work that was required by building codes. This issue is addressed further in Section 6.3.

6.3 Modification of the Financial Structure of Design Fees and Construction Bidding to Specifically Itemize Nonstructural Design and Construction Work.

The concept of allocating specific fees for nonstructural seismic design was rated as a potentially very effective measure by structural engineers. In fact, 70% of SEs rated this as a potentially very effective approach. This information was supplemented by results from telephone and face-to-face interviews, revealing that the work associated with correct and thorough nonstructural


Page 36

seismic design is a nontrivial scope of work. Yet, in the view of these same respondents, the work would often receive the same fee if it were accomplished incompletely (such as using overly general notes on drawings that instructed the equipment supplier to do the work) versus actually doing a thorough design tailored to a specific project. Thus an incentive to “pass the buck” exists in the current system (excepting localities that require specific designs by SEs).

Another solution is for owners themselves to require and enforce a detailed and thorough nonstructural seismic design. Private utilities have reported success in nonstructural bracing implementation through development of a seismic criteria document that must be used by all consultants performing work for the utility (Masek et.al, 2003). For these utility projects, certification of correct nonstructural bracing is a prerequisite for final engineer and contractor payment.

From a contractor’s perspective, modifying the current specification and bidding process to include separate specification sections for nonstructural seismic requirements, as well as requiring a separate line item for nonstructural seismic work on bid documents, would be beneficial. This approach essentially forces direct consideration of nonstructural seismic requirements, independently of the quality or completeness of design documents. This approach has been used on a number of seismic retrofit projects reported by respondents, and for these projects the approach was reported to be effective. Use of this approach on general construction projects (i.e. not just seismic retrofit projects) is proposed in this recommendation.

6.4 Modification or Adaptation of Existing Plan Review and Building Inspection Processes

This area has been given varying levels of attention in different geographic locations. In St. Louis (ATC, 2008) the local jurisdiction requires the use of checklists to verify that nonstructural seismic design has been accomplished. In California, for critical facilities, nonstructural seismic design measures are thoroughly reviewed by the Office of Statewide Health Planning and Development (OSHPD) (CAC, 2007), with reportedly very high code compliance success rates. At the opposite extreme, some plan reviewers reported that careful examination of nonstructural seismic bracing design was unnecessary and even discouraged by their supervisors or other public officials. While development of a uniform system that works for every jurisdiction may be impractical, development of a system that ensures reasonable conformance to nonstructural seismic bracing requirements should certainly be possible. As with other groups of respondents, code enforcement professionals and inspectors believed that the core solution related to education. In this case, as with other professions, a professional organization such as the International Code Council (ICC) could play a lead role in development of and implementation of continuing education courses.


Page 37

Stricter code enforcement is also an essential part of this process. However, given the current reported level of noncompliance with building codes (Figure 6.3), it may be doubtful that the problem of noncompliance can be solved by only heightened enforcement. There are economic reasons for this view as well. Implementation of such a system (with very thorough review, such as for hospitals in California) would likely be very costly (if adapted to all structures in all states with nonstructural seismic design requirements). Respondents also indicated that a system that encouraged conformance through education would be more effective than creation of or use of more punitive measures for nonconformance.

Figure 6.3 Percent of Respondents Responding to the Question: How Prevalent is Noncompliance?

# Answer %

1 Very common 25%

2 Occasional 55%

3 Rare 20%

Total 100%


Page 38

6.5 Creation of Incentives for Compliance

The concept of creating some sort of incentive system for compliance was viewed favorably by 40% of respondents. Given that nonstructural seismic requirements are part of the building code, and therefore the law, the need for an incentive program could be questioned. Nonetheless, incentive programs do already exist, especially for voluntary seismic retrofit projects. Some respondents indicated that seismic retrofit projects did not always give the same level of attention to nonstructural retrofitting as to retrofitting the primary structure. Yet existing incentive programs available through FEMA can be used to fund up to 75% of nonstructural seismic retrofit costs. Reference is made to the following website for more information: www.fema.gov/government/grant/pdm.

For new buildings, several respondents suggested that perhaps insurance companies could offer incentives for demonstration of nonstructural seismic design completeness. Further study of this concept has merit, as both the building owner and insurance company could potentially benefit from such as system. 6.6 Simplification of Current Code Provisions

A complaint expressed by some architects, engineers, and other groups (who reported that they were familiar with current seismic design provisions) was that the current provisions are unnecessarily complex for most nonessential structures. Exploring written comments from the 45% of respondents in Figure 6.2 (who thought better code provisions were needed) reveals this finding. While the scope of this study specifically excluded (from the onset) any research into technical changes in the current building codes, this finding should nonetheless not be ignored. This topic could be part of a future study by others.

6.7 Other Solutions

The amount of information collected from respondents and contained in Appendices A through J is substantial. These data are sufficiently detailed to be usable for further research by other researchers or practitioners. The authors encourage others to review and analyze this information and develop solutions that work best for their local jurisdictions.


Page 39

7.0 Recommendations for Further Research

The authors recommend expansion of the survey in order to further validate results and to test recommendations given in this report.

The authors believe that one of the more effective ways to validate and expand upon the research in this report would be to implement a series of trial continuing education courses carefully crafted to address the high-priority problem areas and high-priority solutions presented in this report. These courses should address the identified procedural problem areas and potential solutions (rather than just providing technical design examples for current code provisions.) Upon completion of these courses, attendees could be asked to provide further input regarding how to best achieve successful implementation of nonstructural seismic design requirements that exist in current building codes. Information gathered from participants in these trial courses could then be used to identify new measures or approaches to achieve successful implementation of nonstructural seismic design provisions.

Further study of the concept of a specific certification for nonstructural seismic design is also recommended. Possible models for such a new certification should be studied through a cooperative effort between licensing boards and authorities for various design and construction disciplines. Consideration should be given to both a mandatory specialty licensing requirement and a voluntary certification, to determine which approach would be most effective.

Appendix A, Electronic Survey Results, All Disciplines Page A‐1


Appendix A: Complete Qualtrics Report from Electronic Survey


1.0 Introduction

This appendix provides a summary of data gathered from all respondent groups, using the on line Qualtrics survey tool. Questions are listed in the order that they appeared to respondents.

2. Please identify your primary profession by selecting ONE of the buttons below

Answer Response %

Facility/Building owner 1 1%

Facility manager 9 5%

Architect 15 8%

Structural engineer 61 32%

Civil engineer 13 7%

Mechanical or Electrical engineer 6 3%

General Contractor 9 5%

Building Subcontractor 1 1%

Equipment manufacturer (please specify the type of equipment you manufacture, e.g., ductwork bracing)

5 3%


1 1%

Building inspector 11 6%

Building plan reviewer 25 13%

University professor (please specify field of expertise)

2 1%

Other (SEE NOTES) 30 16%

Total 189 100%


Equipment manufacturer (please specify the type of equipment you manufacture, e.g., ductwork bracing)

University professor (please specify field of expertise)

Other (SEE NOTES)

MEP disaster reduction and emergency planning

emergency preparedness coordinator

seismic expansion joint seismology Building Mechanical Inspector

security products gas utility

cable type sway bracing for all non‐structural building components

Building Official

Connectors Building Official

BUILDING OFFICIAL

earthquake engineer

retired building inspector

Engineering Geologist (State government)

Social Science Research‐‐Contract research

Planner

Safety Officer

Sales Engineering

manager in a hospital

Bldg Permit Counter supervisor

HVAC Inspector

Building Official

Building Official

Building Official

Building Official

Building Official

Building Official

Building Official

Building Official

Industry Technical Director

Building Official


Building Official

Building Official

Building Official

Director, Government & Public Affairs

3. How many years have you been employed

# Answer Average Value Standard Deviation

1 Years 21.22 11.45

Total 21.22 11.45

4. What is the primary state in which you do most of your business?

# Answer Response %

1 California 113 63%

2 Utah 30 17%

3 Washington 11 6%

4 Other 25 14%

Total 179 100%

5. In what state do you reside?

# Answer %

1 California 73%

2 Utah and Washington 20%

3 Washington 8%

Total 100%


6. What is the highest level of education you have achieved?

# Answer Response %

1 Less than high school 0 0%

2 High school graduate or equivalent 1 1%

3 Trade/Technical school graduate (please specify your area of study)

8 4%

4 Some college 22 12%

5 College graduate (please specify your major field of study)

73 41%

6 Post‐graduate degree (master's, doctoral, other) (please specify your degree and area of study)

75 42%

Total 179 100%

Trade/Technical school graduate (please specify your area of study)

College graduate (please specify your major field of study)

Post‐graduate degree (master's, doctoral, other) (please specify your degree and area of study)

Automotive Engineering Nursing M.S. Civil Engineering ‐ Structural

carpentry also Electrical BSCE doctorate, Civil Engineering

Inspection Technology Civil Engineering Ph.D.

engineering Civil Engineer PhD Civil Engineering


carpentry and electrical BSCE Master's in structural

Refrigeration Technology Civil Engineering master's in Structural Engineering

Plumbing B.S., Structural Engineering Civil‐Structural

Electrical Business MS ‐ CIVIL ENGR

structural MPA

psychology geotechnical

Mech. Engr Masters, structural engineering

Bach of ARCH PhD (Catastrophe Risk Management/Structural Engineering)

BS in Architectural Engineer MSCE, MBA Project Management

BARCH‐Architect PhD ‐ Structures

BS‐Bldg. Const. Mgmt. Master's, geological sciences

Engineering MS Structural Eng.

Mech. Engr. MS Structures UC Berkeley

Civil Engineering Masters‐geophysics

Bachelor of Arch. Sociology

Architecture MSCE

Civil Engineering MS

structural engineering MS Geology

Industrial Engineering and Management Sciences

MS CE, structural engineering

engineering MS Structural Engineering

BSEE Masters ‐ Structural Engineering

Water/wastewater Master's Structural eng

BS CE Master's

Civil Engineering Master's‐Structural Engineering

Civil Engineering Masters

architectural engineering Master's Structural Eng.

nursing MS Structural Engineering

Civil Engineering Structural Emphasis

M.S. ‐ Structural Engineering

building engineering Masters ‐ structural

Civil Engineering Masters in Civil Engineering ‐ Structural Focus

BS civil engineering MBA

Civil Engineering MS Structural Eng


BS in Civil Engineering Masters

Mechanical Engineering MS Structural

B.S. Architectural Engineering master of public policy

Civil Engineering MS Civil Engineering

German Culture Masters in Structural Engineering

Construction Management MBA

Structural Engineering architectural engineering

Civil Engineer MBA International Business

Architecture Master's Structural Engineering

Management MS, structural engr.

Geological Engineering MS Civil Engineering

Business MBA

Architecture Doctorate in Mechanical Engineering

architecture MS Structural Engineering

Civil Engineering architecture/engineering

AS ‐ Building Inspection Technology

MS Civil Engineering

Const. Technology PhD

Construction Engineering Technology

Civil Engineering

Industrial Arts Master of Architecture

Public Admin MS Civil Engineering

Business/Construction technology

Fire protection

Architecture MPA

architecture Civil Engineering

Architecture Master‐ Civil/ structural

BS in Civil Engineering Master of Fine Arts

BS Constr. Management MS Civil

Architecture Master of Science‐Engineering

Civil Engr. MS Manufacturing Mgmt

Mechanical Engineering

Mechanical Engineer


7. Please identify the types of structures or facilities with which you have experience. Check one or more categories as is applicable.

# Answer %

1 Federal Government buildings 23%

2 Local or State Government buildings 48%

3 Emergency Services, Fire, Police 34%

4 Healthcare 41%

5 Utilities 27%

6 K‐12 Schools 30%

7 Universities 35%

8 Office and Commercial 74%

9 Industrial 61%

10 Residential 66%

11 High Occupancy, convention centers 28%

12 Others (please list) 17%

Others (please list)

Bridges

All

All of above

Recreational

Single family dwellings/duplexes

amusements rides etc.

HIGHWAY DESIGN

Explosives Manufacturing

Malls

Hazardous Material usage/storage: Bioresearch;

Historic structures of archaic materials

Transportation

I only get involved thru customer requests and the building type is wide open

Water and Waste Water

Water treatment facilities

sport facilities, jails


Tuck unders

Treatment Plants

Aquariums

High Rise Buildings

Hazardous

Retail, semiconductor,

Airport, Jails

Malls

Hotels/Motels, Resorts

n/a

Deep Foundations, Marine

Prisons, Courthouses

Army structures

8. How many years experience do you have in your profession? (Please indicate below)


1 Years 23.34 10.87

Total 23.34 10.87

9. Have you ever been in an earthquake?

# Answer %

1 Yes 87%

2 No 13%

Total 100%


10. Are you familiar with any codes, design guidelines, or standards that govern the installation of nonstructural and equipment seismic restraints in buildings.

# Answer %

1 Yes 80%

2 No 20%

Total 100%

11. Please list the codes that you are familiar with:

#1 #2 #3 #4 #5

International Building Code

ASCE 7 SMACNA ASCE 41

IBC 2006 older versions of UBC

1997 UBC ASCE 7 ‐ 05

UBC ICBO AIA Minimum Standards for Healthcare Occ.

NFPA 99

IBC UBC SBC NBC NBCC

ASCE 7‐05 CBC 2007 IBC 2006 UBC 1997 AISC Steel Construction Manual

IBC ‐current and past ASCE‐7 ‐ current and past

UBC ‐ past editions BOCA ‐ past editions

SBC ‐ past editions

UBC '97 IBC '06 FEMA 356 ASCE 7 ASCE 41

2006 IBC ASCE7‐05

IBC Mass Building Code

labc

building code seismic code design for shear values

residential code

Safety Gas Shut off Valves

Water Heater Anchors

Anchor Bolts

NY Build Code UBC IBC BOCA ASCE7‐05

2007 CALIFORNIA BLDG CODE

2007 CALIFORNIA MECHANICAL

2007 CALIFORNIA PLUMBING CODE

2007 CALIFORNIA ELECTRICAL CODE

2005 CALIFORNIA


CODE ENERGY CODE

2007 CBC 2007 CEC 2007 CMC ASCE 7‐05

uniform plumbing code

2007 CBC

IBC

2001 CBC (1997 UBC)

2007 CBC (2006 IBC & ASCE 7‐05)

IBC

California Building Code

ASCE 7‐05 Seismic Restrain Manual by SMACNA

ASCE 7‐05 UBC IBC CBC UMC

ICC

CBC ASCE AISC ACI NDS

2001 California Building Code Section 1632

ASCE 7‐05 Chapter 13

calif bldg code

2006 IBC, IRC, IPC,IMC, NEC, IFC,

UBC Title 24 California State Building code

ASCE 7 2005 CBC 2007 IBC 2006 NDS AISC

2006 IBC 2006 IRC

1997 UBC 2006 IBC ASCE‐7 older version of UBC and IBC

UBC IBC

Uniform Building Code (1973‐1997)

International Building Code (2000‐2006)

ASCE 7.02, 7.05 California Building Code 1998, 2001, 2007

Factory Mutual Federal Emergency Management Agency

OSHPOD

CBC 2007 IBC 2006 + Referenced standards

CBC 2001 UBC 1997 UBC 1994

"61 ‐ "97 UBC "00 ‐ "06 IBC FEMA 178 ‐ ASCE 31

ATC 33 ‐ ASCE 41 Los Angeles City Building Code


UBC, 1997 and earlier

ASCE 7 IBC NEHRP Provisions SEAOC Bluebook NFPA‐13

Part 4 of the National Building Code of Canada (NBC)

California’s SB 1953 for hospitals

2003 & 2006 International Building Code

San Francisco 2001 CBC

Hawaii building code

ASCE 7‐05 ASCE 31 ASCE 41 NFPA 13

ASCE 7 FEMA 356 ASCE 31 ASCE 41 FEMA design Guides

FEMA Nonstructural Guidelines

nfc AIA guidelines IBC

California Building Code (multiple versions)


ASCE 7‐05 NFPA SMACNA

UBC ASCE 7 RMI IBC

TCLEE water wastewater guidelines

UBC

Seattle Building Code


ASCE 7‐05 AWWA D100‐05

UBC 97 IBC 2001 IBC 2003

CBC 2007, IBC 2006, ASCE 7‐05 etc

Title 24 Past UBC codes & Title 24

97 UBC

IBC/ASCE7/FEMA OSHPD UBC BOCA SBCCI

IBC 2006 ASCE 7

ASCE 7‐05 California Building Code

Uniform Building Code

Title 24, California Building Code

IBC

IBC UBC

CBC ASCE IBC

IBC 2006 ASCE 07 ACI 318 & 530 AISC 360 & 341 NDS

1997 UBC ASCE 7‐05 ASCE 41‐06


ASCE 7


ASCE 07

ASCE 7‐05 IBC 06

IBC 2006 ASCE/SEI 31‐03

NEHRP Provisions UBC IBC SMACNA ASCE 31

IBC2006

IBC ASCE 7 TI 809‐04

IBC IRC UBC

ASCE 7‐05 IBC 2006 ACI 318‐05 Appendix D

ASME B31.3 2002 (somewhat)

IBC IMC IPC IFC Oregon Mechanical Specialty Code

ASCE 7 ‐ 05 and 02 UBC 1997

IBC 2006 IBC 2003 Oregon Structural Specialty Code

CBC 2007

IBC ASCE 7 ASCE 31 ASCE 41

IBC/ASCE 7

ASCE 7 IBC 2006 SMACNA

NFPA 13 Uniform Plumbing Code

California Plumbing code

International building code

Uniform building code

CBC 2007 ACI 318 ASCE 7‐05 LA CITY ZONING CODE

AISC 341, 358

Los Angeles Building Code


CBC2007

2008 LABC

Section 304.4 2007 California Mechanical Code

Seismic Restraints Manuel Guidelines for Mechanical Systems SMACNA



Los Angeles Plumbing Code

N.F.P.A. 13 N.F.P.A. 14 N.F.P.A. 20

Ceiling lateral support

MEP equip support Curtain wall floor drift accommodation

Stair floor drift accommodation

Building differential movement


expansion joints


California Plumbing Code

UBC IBC State of California Title 8

NFPA 13

LA City Bldg Code ASCE 7 AISC ACI


Universal Building Code

Universal Pluming Code

2007 California Building Code

ASCE 7‐05

ASCE 7‐05 ACI 318‐05 ASTM C635 ASTM C636 CISCA for Seismic Zones 3‐4

Shelving Mechanical equipment

water heaters

CBC

ICC UBC

CMC CEC CPC furnishings ‐ bookcases, computers, etc.

Server Farms

CBC 2007 IBC 2006 CBC 2001 UBC 1997 UBC earlier

UBC UMC UPC UFC

UBC Former San Francisco Building Code


IBC ASCE 7

ASCE 7 IBC 2006 1997 UBC

restraint of water heater in residential work

lay in ceiling grid restraint

tall furniture restraint

IBC UBC

CA Plumbing Code CA Mechanical Code

NEC

ASCE 7‐05

IBC CBC

ASCE‐7 IEBC Title 24

California Electrical Code

California Mechanical Code


California Fire Code

ASCE07‐05

CMC SMACNA


I‐Code CBC OSHPD DSA/State Fire codes

CMC CPC CEC

IEBC

Plumbing code Mechanical Code Electrical Code Energy Code

CBC

UMC

ASCE 7‐05

FEMA 450 ASCE 7

NEHRP IBC 2006 ASCE 7‐5

UBC

NEC IPC National Life Safety Code

BOCA

NEC (Electrical) UMC (Mechanical) UPC (Plumbing)

FEMA

12. Please indicate how familiar you are with the following codes:


# Question 1‐ Not at all

familiar

2‐ Somewhat familiar

3‐ Moderately familiar

4‐ Very Familiar

5‐ Extremely familiar

Responses Mean

1 The International Building Code

8 14 36 78 28 164 3.63

2

ASCE 7‐05 (Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and Other Structures)

35 23 32 44 27 161 3.03

3

ASCE 31‐03 (Seismic Evaluation of Existing Buildings)

63 38 30 22 7 160 2.20

4 ASCE 41‐06 89 29 18 13 7 156 1.85

5 NFPA 82 43 14 13 2 154 1.77

13. When constructing a building in which standards or codes are you required to abide by:


# Question Yes No I Don't Know

Responses Mean

1 The International Building Code 140 10 9 159 1.18

2 ASCE 7‐05 (Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and Other Structures)

116 4 28 148 1.41

3 ASCE 31‐03 (Seismic Evaluation of Existing Buildings) 27 47 60 134 2.25

4 ASCE 41‐06 20 38 75 133 2.41

5 NFPA 39 29 65 133 2.20

14. What are the penalties for noncompliance with The Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and Other Structures (ASCE 7‐05)? (Please respond in the box below. If you do not know what the penalties are, then write 'Don't Know'.

Text Response

Cannot procure a permit (theoretically), exposure to claims

Depends ‐ can lose privilege to practice as an engineer

don't know

don't know

Don't know

Don't know

'Don't Know'

Don/t Know

Don't Know

can't be built

do not know

No permit would be issued for a new or remodeled structure that didn't meet the minimum design loads

They do not get a building permit, if build without permit then double fee’s if not comply then Admin hearing and lien may be placed on the title.

Do not know for sure. But if the building fails you could be legally on the hook and sued

Don't know

Don't Know


'Don't Know'

None

don't know

Don’t Know

Cannot get building permit

civil penalties (lawsuits)

Don't Know

None ‐ though you may not get a building permit

Projects that don’t comply are not approved, field inspectors will stop projects for not compliance if under construction

Don't Know

No Building Permit will be issued

Loss of license to practice structural engineering

Are we talking about a new building, a retrofit? Are we talking about "penalties" in the IBC/ASCE 7, or in the CAC?

Don't know

Will not get a building permit. Could be legal penalties if found negligent.

loss of license, liability

Don't know

don't know

Compliance with the IBC is required. Compliance with ASCE 7 is only as referenced by the IBC.

Structure will not be permitted

Don't know

Don’t know

I see little or no penalties, except for Liability exposure.

Don't know

Don't Know

Don't Know

Don't know

Don't Know

Don't Know

DOPL Reprimand

don't know

Civil litigation and disciplinary action by the state license board

Don't Know


Don't know.

Don't Know

you could lose your license

Design is not according to code

Don't Know

Penalties could be loss of license or loss in a law suit. Most likely none. ASCE 7 is part of the CBC

Potential suspension or revoking of license

The building permit will be denied. In extreme cases of gross negligence or repeated noncompliance, a complaint can be filed and the engineer's license can be suspended or revoked.

Should be caught at plan check or red tagged at the site if caught there

No building permit shall be issued

Increased engineering time during construction and design

You don't get a building Permit. Other than that, I don't know.

Don't know

Varies pending degree of non‐compliance, stage of project, and who's prosecuting.

Death by hanging.

Liability risk ‐ don't know of code "penalties"

don't know

Non‐acceptance of the building. non‐receipt of C of O

LOSS OF LIFE

Compliance is required before building permit can be issued.

The design will not be approved for building permit.

don't know

Will not receive a permit to build.

no permit

don't know

don’t know

The AHJ should be able to require compliance through the plan review process and ultimately, the inspection process. If some building is constructed without the permit process, ultimately, the code enforcement process will ensure compliance.

Revocation of permit, possibly destruction of construction completed if not complying.

Don't know

Must comply with code requirements

none

don't know

Don't Know


Don't Know

professional license impacts

Don't Know

Different seismic design response coefficients, spectral mapped acceleration, anchorage force requirements

Don't Know

don't know

No permit would be issued

What do you mean? If the design doesn't comply with code you may not get a permit or could be liable for a defective structure

We do not issue permits unless applicant complies with standards

Don't Know

Don't Know

You will not get approved drawings from plan check

Penalties as prescribed by law, revoke/suspend permit, fees established by BO over and above the permit fee.

Don't Know

A violation of the California law and possible loss of license or discipline from the boards. Law suits etc.

You will not be able to obtain permit.

Don't Know

To obtain a building permit, the designer must comply with ASCE 7‐05. In addition, the designer may be legally liable for not complying with the minimum standard of care.

15. What are the penalties for noncompliance with The International Building Code?

Text Response

Exposure to claim, cannot procure a building permit


Loss of Use, denial of Licensure in Healthcare Facilities

don't know

That's about the silliest question I can imagine.

Redesign

Don't know specifically, possibly disciplinary action


'Don't Know'

Loss of License

Don't Know

Correct work or have project stopped

can't get a permit to build the building

stop work till compliance, or orders to comply with enforcement thru city attorney’s office

do not know

See above answer re: ASCE 7‐05

see previous


Don’t know

It depends on the violation

Investigation Fees and increased construction and evaluation costs

'Don't Know'

Permit is not issued until compliance is shown through drawings, details and calculations

Noncompliance is not a code option.

Don’t know


Loss of license, law suits, no building permit...

no permit

civil lawsuits

fine/loss of license

No Civil penalties. Potential failure to get building permit. Potential litigation associated with nonconformance with the standard of care

Projects that comply are not approved for construction during review, field inspectors will stop construction if noncompliance found at construction site

Don't Know

as adopted by the CBC it is required for building permit

loss of license to practice SE

see previous answers

Don't know

Same as ASCE 7.

yes

The building department will not finalize your building permit ‐ potential liability for damage that can be traced to non‐compliance

Don't know


No building occupancy

don't know

Engineering License revoked and possible fines.

Building permit will not be issued

a pat on the back from the owner. Stupid question

no building permit, possible loss of engineering license, fines,

Don't know

don’t know

I see no penalties, other than Liability exposure, unless you consider jeopardizing Federal Disaster Relief Funding.

don't know

Don't know.

Don't Know

You cannot get a permit.

Loss of license, possible prosecution

Don't Know

DOPL Reprimand

don't know


Don't know the exact penalty. I assume some kind of fine, never been fined yet.

Don't know.

Loss License

could lose your license

design is not according to code

Loss of professional license

Same as ASCE 7 above. It is most part of the CBC


The same as for ASCE 7.



Prosecution, loss of license, no occupancy permit

Everything gets design by an engineer if it over 500 lbs or over 20 lbs and 5ft off the ground

You don't get a building permit. Other than that, I don't know

Disciplinary actions if someone catches you or there is a failure

Varies pending degree of non‐compliance, stage of the project, and who's prosecuting.


Liability risk, denial of building permit.

Violators will be subject to penalties as prescribed by law.

Loss of contractor's license ‐ possible fines


No permit given, redesign needed

I don't know

Building permit will not be issued until compliance is demonstrated.

The design will not be approved for a building permit.

court misdemeanors

IBC is a model code adopted by California and amended by local jurisdiction.

no permit

failure to receive permit

don't know

Do not get the Certificate of Occupancy

don’t know

Increased Liability

Same as above

revocation of permit, potentially destruction of construction if not compliant and unsafe

Don't know

Must comply or permit does not get issued

project doesn't get built

don't know

Don't know

Stop Work order, , Fines for work w/o permit, No final, No Certificate of Occupancy



16. Are you aware of any specific suggested nonstructural seismic restraint guidelines produced by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA)?

# Answer %

1 Yes 33%

2 No 67%

Total 100%

17. Please list any other resources you are aware of for guidance in nonstructural seismic restraint design:

Text Response

ATC

Seismic Restrain Manual by SMACNA

ASTM, CISCA

FEMA 74

FEMA 74 ‐ hazard mitigation for nonstructural elements

NFPA‐13, SMACNA Guidelines

Factory Mutual standards

NEHRP 2003

FEMA 450, FEMA 357 ‐ ASCE 41, FEMA 310 ‐ ASCE 31

SMACNA, proprietary system catalogs (Mason, Hilti, ISAT, et al.)

ISAT's OSHPD OPA‐0485, ATC‐29‐2,

Documents for the lay person (residential or office) from community earthquake preparedness projects in California

ASCE 31 and 41 were originally funded by FEMA.

FEMA 356, FEMA 412,413.414

Research by museums, such as the Getty.

SMACMA, NFPA, AWWA

SMACNA, Industry‐specific guidelines, ASME code (the best)

OSHPD, SMACNA

Loos & Co., Inc. Manual of Code Compliance Guidelines on Earthquake Resistance od Architectural,


Mechanical and Electrical Components and Systems.

none

SMACNA


ASCE‐7

SMACNA manual, ASHRAE seismic design guidelines, Department of the Interior Nonstructural guidelines, Tri Services manuals

I know that NFPA‐13 has some guidelines for bracing of fire sprinkler lines, but I do not know the specifics.

AWWA, Minimizing Earthquake Damage, A Guide For Water Utilities. (No Date)

NEHRP (National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program)

ASCE 31 FEMA 356

ATC 29, SEAONC, EERI Seminars

TI 809‐04, IBC, ASCE 7

Telcordia (Bellcore) Generic Requirement specifications for telecommunications equipment (not for restraints, for robust equipment) SEMI Guidelines ‐ for semiconductor equipment

SMACNA, NUSIG, OSHPD

ASCE 7‐05 provides the design loads. I'm not aware of any design guides though.

Mason West‐Seismic guidelines and details


Seismic Restraints Manuel Guideline for Mechanical Systems SMACNA

FEMA 413‐ Installing Seismic Restraints for Electrical Equipment

CBC

ASCE 7‐05, 2007 California Building Code, Guidelines for Seismic Restraint for Direct Hung Suspended Ceiling Assemblies by CISCA

FEMA 74‐‐Reducing Risks of Nonstructural Earthquake Damage FEMA 450‐‐NEHRP Recommended Provisions for Seismic Regulations FEMA 460‐‐Storage Racks

FEMA web site, CA OES

Ceiling and Interior Systems Construction Association (CISCA)

Henry Lagorio's book FEMA 154/July 1988

FEMA 450, FEMA 461, FEMA 412. FEMA 414, FEMA 395, FEMA 396, FEMA 397, FEMA 398, FEMA 399

common sense

Design standard for dropped ceiling restraints. (CISCA I believe)

state of California health and safety code

Local ordinances

FEMA pre‐standards such as350, 351, 368, 369


none

UL HWD tested wall assemblies, Slip Track, Fire Track,

FEMA 454, HAZUS for Mitigation

Some ICC references are available.

ASCE 7‐05

None.

NEHRP, IBC, ASCE, FEMA

California Building Code, FEMA 310

CBC, title 24

EOTA

FEMA 74 ‐ Earthquake Hazard Mitigation for Nonstructural Elements


18. How important do you think earthquake safety standards for are to other professionals in the building community?

# Answer %

1 1‐ not at all important 1%

2 2 12%

3 3 11%

4 4‐ moderately important 26%

5 5 15%

6 6 19%

7 7‐ extremely important 15%

Total 100%


19. How important are nonstructural safety standards to you?

# Answer %


2 2 2%

3 3 2%


5 5 15%

6 6 34%


Total 100%


20. In your geographic area, how important is the installation of earthquake anchorage and the bracing of nonstructural items such as walls, ceilings, lighting fixtures, firewater piping, and ductwork?

# Answer %


2 2 3%

3 3 4%


5 5 11%

6 6 27%


Total 100%


21. In your geographic area, how important is the installation of seismic anchorage and the bracing of building components such as electrical transformers and electrical switchgear, and mechanical equipment, such as boilers, etc.

# Answer %


2 2 2%

3 3 5%


5 5 13%

6 6 28%


Total 100%


22. In your geographic area, how important is the seismic anchorage and bracing design of facade elements, such as exterior panels and windows?

# Answer %


2 2 2%

3 3 7%


5 5 16%

6 6 22%


Total 100%


23. In your geographic area, how important is the seismic anchorage and bracing design of process equipment in an industrial facility or utility?

# Answer %


2 2 3%

3 3 3%


5 5 12%

6 6 30%


Total 100%


24. If a major earthquake were to occur in your area and if nonstructural or equipment items (such as those defined earlier) were NOT anchored or braced in a building, to what extent do you believe injuries or death would occur?

# Answer %

1 Injuries or death definitely would not happen 0%

2 Injuries or death probably would not happen 7%

3 Injuries or death may or may not happen 20%

4 Injuries or death probably would happen 48%

5 Injuries or death definitely would happen 26%

Total 100%


25. If a major earthquake were to occur in your area and if equipment or nonstructural restraints were absent in a structure, to what extent do you believe that major damage would occur to the structure?

# Answer %

1 Major damage definitely would not happen 1%

2 Major damage probably would not happen 8%

3 Major damage may or may not happen 30%

4 Major damage probably would happen 43%

5 Major damage definitely would happen 19%

Total 100%


26. If a major earthquake were to occur in your area, to what extent do you believe that damage to nonstructural or equipment items could result in severe enough damage to cause major facility downtime?

# Answer %

1 Major facility downtime definitely would not happen 0%

2 Major facility downtime probably would not happen 3%

3 Major facility downtime may or may not happen 15%

4 Major facility downtime probably would happen 55%

5 Major facility downtime definitely would happen 27%

Total 100%


27. Which do you believe is more likely in your area (choose one):

# Answer %

1 Failure of, or significant damage to, nonstructural elements and systems during a moderate earthquake

91%

2 Structural collapse during a moderate earthquake 9%

Total 100%


28. In your opinion, when a structure is to be built, who is responsible to be familiar with nonstructural seismic safety design standards? (Check all that apply)

# Answer Response %

1 Architect 128 86%

2 Structural engineer 121 81%

3 Civil engineer 66 44%

4 Mechanical engineer 131 88%

5 Electrical engineer 118 79%

6 General contractor 109 73%

7 Building subcontractor 92 62%

8 Equipment manufacturer 87 58%

9 Equipment supplier 69 46%


98 66%

11 Building inspector 132 89%

12 Building plan reviewer 118 79%

13 Construction project manager 92 62%

14 Overall design project manager 82 55%

15 Other (please specify) 13 9%


Other (please specify)

facilities managers post construction

Owners and Building Officials

Owner

Developer

Owner

Fire Sprinkler consultant

Currently, nobody

owner

Mechanical and electrical subcontractors

special inspector

HVAC and Plumbing Inspectors

Building owner

Building owner or rep


29. In your opinion, when a structure is to be built, who has the primary responsibility to be familiar with nonstructural seismic safety design standards? (Select one)

# Answer %

x1 Architect 30%

x2 Structural engineer 35%

x3 Civil engineer 2%

x4 Mechanical engineer 7%

x5 Electrical engineer 1%

x6 General contractor 3%

x7 Building subcontractor 0%

x8 Equipment manufacturer 1%

x9 Equipment supplier 0%

x10 Supplier or installer of specialty seismic bracing devices

3%

x11 Building inspector 7%

x12 Building plan reviewer 2%

x13 Construction project manager 1%

x14 Overall design project manager 7%

x15 Other (please specify) 2%

Total 100%


30. In your opinion, who have you found to be the most informed about nonstructural seismic safety design standards. (Select one)

# Answer %

1 Architect 9%


3 Civil engineer 3%








9%





15 Other (please specify) 4%

Total 100%


31. In your opinion, who have you found to be the least informed about nonstructural seismic safety design standards. (Select one)

# Answer %

1 Architect 23%


3 Civil engineer 5%








0%






Total 100%


32. Who do you believe is responsible for compliance with nonstructural seismic safety design standards? [Please rank order your responses with a '1' representing the party most responsible]

# Answer 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

11

12

13

14

15

Responses

1 Architect 46 22 13 10 9 1 1 2 2 4 3 1 1 1 0 116

2 Structural engineer

34 31 15 15 4 2 3 1 0 3 3 0 1 3 0 115

3 Civil engineer

5 5 8 4 1 3 3 3 1 1 0 6 4 5 1 51


15 18 30 11 14 7 3 4 3 2 0 2 2 0 0 112

5 Electrical engineer

5 14 18 16 10 12

7 5 7 0 3 1 2 2 0 102

6 General contractor

14 13 7 19 16 5 9 7 4 6 1 1 0 0 0 102


2 8 11 9 11 10

5 8 6 4 7 1 1 1 0 84


7 2 9 8 2 8 5 6 4 9 5 7 2 1 0 75


9 Equipment supplier

3 4 2 8 3 2 7 6 6 6 5 4 5 2 0 63

10


11 7 11 8 8 10

5 6 6 4 8 3 0 1 0 88

11

Building inspector

14 16 12 6 7 13

15

9 12

4 0 1 2 0 0 111

12

Building plan reviewer

9 14 8 3 11 10

11

11

4 4 4 4 1 0 0 94

13

Construction project manager

1 10 5 7 11 4 6 6 11

3 8 9 3 0 0 84

14

Overall design project manager

9 7 10 7 5 6 6 2 4 7 1 2 6 4 0 76

15


6 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 10

Total 181

171

159

131

112

94

87

76

70

57

48

42

31

20

2


Owner

Depends on contract

property owner

Developer

owner/developer

Professional of Record (Design Professional)

building owner/tenant

Special Inspector

Everyone designing a system

Inspectors


33. In your opinion, who has ultimate responsibility to see that buildings are compliant with nonstructural seismic safety design standards? (Select one)

# Answer %

1 Architect 22%


3 Civil engineer 2%








2%






Total 100%



Owner

Depends on contract

property owner

Based on individual's scope of work

Professional of Record (Design Professional)

OWNER

everyone designing a system

inspector

building owner

Owner

Owner


34. Given that there are standards governing the correct installation of nonstructural and equipment seismic restraints in buildings, how well do you believe these standards are complied with in your building community?

# Answer %

1 1‐ never complied with 1%

2 2‐ sometimes complied with 41%

3 3‐ usually complied with 52%

4 4‐ always complied with 5%

Total 100%

35. What percentage of completed structures would you estimate meet nonstructural and equipment seismic restraint standards in your building community?


1 % meeting standards 51.27 26.05

Total 51.27 26.05


36. In cases where you believe nonstructural items in buildings and facilities have been designed and constructed with good seismic anchorage and bracing measures, why has this occurred? [Check all that apply]

# Answer Response %

1 The owner required and checked for compliance with these measures

48 35%

2 The government or other oversight group checked for compliance with these measures

77 56%

3 It was important to me in my professional capacity

58 42%

4 It was required for financing or insurance to be approved

22 16%

5 It was required before the contractor, subcontractor, and/or equipment suppliers could be paid

21 15%

6 It was required by design professionals 100 73%

7 Equipment suppliers provided anchorage kits for this purpose

22 16%

8 The specialty contractors knew what to do and performed this work correctly

53 39%


9 It was a bid item, and therefore had to be done for the contractor to be paid

29 21%

10 It is a strictly enforced provision 47 34%

11 Building inspectors enforce these measures

81 59%

12 It is done as a matter of standard practice in my profession

26 19%

13 The owner hired a specialist in this area to design and/or construct these measures

22 16%

14 It occurred for the work my firm was involved in, but not for others in the same facility

3 2%




Other (please specify) Other (please specify)


The local building department makes this issue a priority for both plan check and inspection

property owner

Independent inspectors found mistakes and public pressure required them to be corrected.

Owner required it

The owner has hired an excellent design and construction teams.

owners


37. Please rank FIVE (5) from the list below in order of causal forces by dragging and dropping them to their respective order:

# Answer Responses

x1 The owner required and checked for compliance with these measures 36

x2 The government or other oversight group checked for compliance with these measures

61

x3 It was important to me in my professional capacity 51

x4 It was required for financing or insurance to be approved 18

x5 It was required before the contractor, subcontractor, and/or equipment suppliers could be paid

20

x6 It was required by design professionals 81

x7 Equipment suppliers provided anchorage kits for this purpose 18

x8 The specialty contractors knew what to do and performed this work correctly 47

x9 It was a bid item, and therefore had to be done for the contractor to be paid 24

x10 It is a strictly enforced provision 40

x11 Building inspectors enforce these measures 66

x12 It is done as a matter of standard practice in my profession 23

x13 The owner hired a specialist in this area to design and/or construct these measures 17

x14 It occurred for the work my firm was involved in, but not for others in the same facility 2

x15 Other (please specify) 3



Total


38. To the extent that you see noncompliance with nonstructural and equipment seismic restraint standards in your building community, why do you think the noncompliance occurs? (Check all that apply)

# Answer %

1 I have never seen compliance 3%

2

The likelihood of a damaging earthquake in this area is too low to justify complying with the standards.

13%

3

It's not against the law to fail to comply with the standards; compliance will happen when it's the law.

11%

4 It is too time consuming to comply with these standards.

17%

5 It is too expensive to comply with the standards.

35%

6 There is little regulatory enforcement of compliance with the standards.

42%

7 The standards are poorly designed. 12%


8 The standards are too difficult to understand.

25%

9 There is little incentive to comply with these standards.

23%

10 There is a lack of compensation for oversight compliance.

15%

11 No one is really interested in making sure the standards are complied with.

11%

12 No one is adequately trained to make sure the standards are complied with.

44%

13

There is a communication breakdown between everyone involved in constructing the building that contributes to noncompliance.

35%

14 There are liability concerns that prevent compliance.

2%

15 No one knows who is ultimately responsible for compliance.

40%

16 Everyone passes the buck to someone else, so compliance doesn't occur.

26%

17 Compliance just falls through the cracks.

33%

18 Penalties for noncompliance aren't severe enough to make compliance a high priority.

20%

19 Everyone just assumes someone else will make sure that compliance occurs.

31%

20 No one is qualified to certify compliance.

9%

21

The likely consequences of an earthquake in my area are to minimal to justify the cost and effort of compliance.

8%





Other (please specify) Other (please specify) Other (please specify)

lot of older buildings in my area that don't meet current seismic codes

belief in community that a big one will not happen in their lifetime

In my community, Michigan, Seismic seems to be a low priority

older design standards

Mechanical or electrical subcontractors sometimes

we enforce compliance

Code on seismic restraints are enforced as required

Inadequate field coordination between sub‐trades may preclude full conformance.

buildings are older than newer regulations

Owners do not want to spend any money

Contractors get lazy or just want to save money

Installation occurs without permit and regulatory inspection

Alterations occur without permit

older buildings


39. Please rank order the reasons why you think noncompliance occurs. Include your own reasons in the ordering if you add any to the list. If there are more than five reasons in the list, rank only the top five. 1 = Most important.

# Answer Responses

x1 I have never seen compliance 1

x2 The likelihood of a damaging earthquake in this area is too low to justify complying with the standards.

11

x3 It's not against the law to fail to comply with the standards; compliance will happen when it's the law.

10

x4 It is too time consuming to comply with these standards. 17

x5 It is too expensive to comply with the standards. 36

x6 There is little regulatory enforcement of compliance with the standards. 45

x7 The standards are poorly designed. 13

x8 The standards are too difficult to understand. 23

x9 There is little incentive to comply with these standards. 24

x10 There is a lack of compensation for oversight compliance. 15

x11 No one is really interested in making sure the standards are complied with. 7

x12 No one is adequately trained to make sure the standards are complied with. 46

x13 There is a communication breakdown between everyone involved in constructing the building that contributes to noncompliance.

37

x14 There are liability concerns that prevent compliance. 2

x15 No one knows who is ultimately responsible for compliance. 39

x16 Everyone passes the buck to someone else, so compliance doesn't occur. 25

x17 Compliance just falls through the cracks. 31

x18 Penalties for noncompliance aren't severe enough to make compliance a high priority.

21

x19 Everyone just assumes someone else will make sure that compliance occurs. 36

x20 No one is qualified to certify compliance. 7

x21 The likely consequences of an earthquake in my area are to minimal to justify the cost and effort of compliance.

8




40. How prevalent is noncompliance?

# Answer %

1 Very common 25%

2 Occasional 55%

3 Rare 20%

Total 100%


41. In cases where nonstructural items are not adequately anchored and braced for earthquake loads, what are the primary factors that could lead to good design and construction practices? (Please check as many as apply

# Answer %

1 New technical provisions in the building codes, i.e. improvement in the technical requirements, could lead to good design and construction practices.

45%

2 Stricter building codes enforcement could lead to good design and construction practices.

48%

3 Better education of design professionals could lead to good design and construction practices.

81%

4 Better education of owners could lead to good design and construction practices.

57%

5 Better education of contractors and equipment suppliers could lead to good design and construction practices.

71%

6 Design fees specifically allocated to this work could lead to good design and construction practices.

37%

7 More federal grants for mitigation of nonstructural 11%


hazards during remodels could lead to good design and construction practices.

8 Better internal quality control by design professionals could lead to good design and construction practices.

39%

9


18%

10 Fairer enforcement of standards across all projects could lead to good design and construction practices.

22%

11 Financial incentives, such as reduced insurance costs, could lead to good design and construction practices.

40%

12 Better public education of hazards posed by nonstructural items in an earthquake could lead to good design and construction practices.

47%

13

Punishment of design professionals and contractors or others associated with non‐compliant buildings or facilities could lead to good design and construction practices.

20%



Simplification of requirements, increased clarity in requirements and the goals of the requirements

Have non‐structural components of concern trigger official building inspection.

Better bracing systems with simple to design connections to the structure. Minimal effect on the structural system = easier construction practices = simple installation = low cost = no reason not to comply.

It could be better worded and more specific in the Mechanical Codes.

making the standards simple and obvious

Better quality control

Communication between design professional, contractor and inspector can ensure qualify work

Given adequate oversight there is no problem ‐ seismic restraint is not that hard


42. Please rank these in order of their causal force by dragging them into their respective order:

# Answer Responses

x1 New technical provisions in the building codes, i.e. improvement in the technical requirements, could lead to good design and construction practices.

34

x2 Stricter building codes enforcement could lead to good design and construction practices.

38

x3 Better education of design professionals could lead to good design and construction practices.

68

x4 Better education of owners could lead to good design and construction practices. 50

x5 Better education of contractors and equipment suppliers could lead to good design and construction practices.

61

x6 Design fees specifically allocated to this work could lead to good design and construction practices.

36

x7 More federal grants for mitigation of nonstructural hazards during remodels could lead to good design and construction practices.

10

x8 Better internal quality control by design professionals could lead to good design and construction practices.

33

x9 The creation of a new system, with specific professional licensing requirements for this type of work, could lead to good design and construction practices.

17

x10 Fairer enforcement of standards across all projects could lead to good design and construction practices.

20

x11 Financial incentives, such as reduced insurance costs, could lead to good design and construction practices.

41

x12 Better public education of hazards posed by nonstructural items in an earthquake could lead to good design and construction practices.

42

x13 Punishment of design professionals and contractors or others associated with non‐compliant buildings or facilities could lead to good design and construction practices.

19


Total


43. Rank the effectiveness of enhancing enforcement of the current standards

# Answer %

1 High probability of increasing compliance 67%



Total 100%

44. In cases where nonstructural items are not adequately anchored and braced for earthquake loads, what are the primary factors that could lead to good design and construction practices?

Text Response

To collaborate early on in the design process with the contractor and the engineer

requirements and design contained in the plans and specs

Training

education of design processionals building code requirements

Inspection list

control and professional training

Better education of designers

Provide a code which is technically correct but easier to read and enforce. Provide a "cookbook" approach for standard items such as piping, ductwork, equipment, transformers, etc. which can be


implemented and enforced easily. Provide alternate guidelines for special cases or as an incentive for less costly alternatives.

45. You stated that enhancing the enforcement of the current standards would have a positive effect. How could enforcement of the standards be enhanced?

Text Response

more inspections

Better training and funding for education of Building Officials and staff

Building inspectors have to pay greater attention to these issues

By training building inspectors to look for and require that appropriate standards be followed

More time and resources for review of construction documents and more field oversight

Require prime professionals to be responsible for design of non structural bracing

Building Official familiarity with code requirements

Installation of certain non‐structural equipment would trigger new building inspections, even if the building already existed.

Require sign off from building inspector that NS seismic bracing has been completed. Require nonstructural seismic bracing observation by the engineer of record.

maybe by punishing the person that lets it pass by

inspections

better plan review and construction inspection

Uniform consistent enforcement by building departments and inspectors.

Don't issue building permit or occupancy permit until compliance occurs

Typically City and deputy inspectors do not understand the significance of proper anchorage and they often negligent. Good enforcement leads greater attention to the design, installation of anchorages. In California, health and education projects have high level enforcement but still there are cases where a better inspections and enforcement is desirable.

Deny building/occupancy permits until a design professional certifies in writing the non‐structural components comply with the seismic requirements of the Building Code and its referenced Standards.

Better education of code requirements and who is responsible for the designs

Trained plan checkers and building inspectors

EDUCATION OF PROFESSION AND BUILDING OFFICIALS

building inspections

Better Educated Inspectors who know what to look for

highly trained special inspectors required to be retained by the project owner/developer

Occupancy permit should be denied if nonstructural bracing is not adequately implemented


Building Inspectors being educated to know what the standards are so that they can enforce the standards in the field.

By education.

No compliance = No permit

increased discussion on these issues; more education of professional, contractors and inspectors

Educating building inspectors

Anchorage of nonstructural items becomes a line‐item for the project inspector, and it is enforced.

Make sure all building inspectors are educated on this standard

Better plan review and required inspections

have penalties for non‐compliance

Better enforcement of QC/QA requirements of IBC Chapter 17. Note that many government clients in poorly regulated areas request designers to omit the provisions of chapter 17.

Building inspectors familiarity could be increased through education and they could target such connections and do various "field tests" that ensure proper installation.

Enforcement by Building Official ‐ Plan Reviewer.

Owners of non‐compliant buildings would have to pay a fine, exceeding the cost of compliance.

Job site inspections

thru the local building departments and the state

Specified requirements as part of the project construction documents

Making sure that the regulatory agency personnel know what is required.

make it more required/mandatory

If it is written, then the chances of it being enforced are very good. We have the personnel to do the job.

periodic inspection to maintain certificate of occupancy

properly educate plan reviewers and inspectors about standards

Building Inspectors Enforcement

Improve education amongst plan reviewers and inspectors.

Making clear the requirements, and whether special inspection of these items is mandatory

Require the code to be adhered to.

Put them into the body of the code

Education of the local jurisdictions Building Depts.

The prime design professional must help coordinate contract documents from the design team members to ensure compliance with standards.

Building Inspector training

Educating the inspectors and increasing penalties.

We already have enhanced enforcement so things can't get much better except for those who do work without permits


Training of building department staff, both in plan review and inspection

Don't know

Inspector issue stop work orders in the field

high enforcement with penalties of not approving project to proceed

Increased education of design professionals, contractors and Building regulatory staff

Train inspection departments using ICC chapters

Non approval, no occupancy.

educate regulators such as plans examiners and building inspectors

Better code regulations and training of the building inspectors.

plan check official

Training or certification of inspection firms

Fines

Plan checker review

The standards to be adopted by local codes

Provide a simpler code

46. Rank the effectiveness reducing financial constraints associated with compliance.

# Answer %




Total 100%


47. You stated that reducing financial constraints associated with compliance would have a positive effect. What financial constraints make compliance difficult?

Text Response

added costs/red tape

Lack of dedicated compensation associated with this work for design professionals, cost of inspection associated with compliance.

unclear bid documents, lack of cost allocation for this work

Perceived costs of installation AND the "time" costs of maintenance of the non‐structural measures as internal configurations change

Professional design fees

There are no insurance savings or construction trade offs given for proper seismic design, except on fire sprinkler systems.

The cheaper it is to comply the more likely the owner will spend the money to comply

Design costs and construction costs

It's simple. If something costs less, more people will do it.

If it is difficult to design, then it is difficult to construct and will cost more money. Simple connection designs will help make everything cheaper and this will make installers want to comply.

cost

Giving a cost incentive for permitting or by insurance underwriters

budgets are only to construct

Allocation of budget to low profile elements which are not as visual and glamour to other architectural and structural features.

If a Section in a code book is well written to require seismic restraints for equipment, then it not cost the enforcing agency anything extra to enforce a section in their code book that they already enforce..

time involved in detail design and labor and materials for installation

Reduction of Insurance Premiums

cost of design and installation

expense

Owners do not want to spend any money that they absolutely do not have to spend.

Generally financial constraints slow all compliance factors

Budget saving or profit pursuit could be the problem.

The cost of design and installation, when not needed.


48. In your opinion, how could the financial burden associated with code compliance be reduced?

Text Response

Provide guidelines for professional fees associated with nonstructural component bracing design. Rationalize inspection requirements.

line item bidding of bracing, consistent code enforcement

Part is the cost of time for the identification ‐ pre‐construction completion ‐ of what the "inside" of the building will look like

See above

Provide insurance savings and construction tradeoffs, when you can demonstrate seismic compliance.

I really have no idea. Perhaps reducing insurance costs for compliant buildings would help

Keep codes simpler.

do not know

If it is used more, then manufacturers could see higher volume and reduce upfront costs

maybe mandatory code

Don't know

Better education of the relevant codes, to all parties involved Inspectors, architects, engineers, etc.

These kind of things just take time energy and resources. Don't know how to get around that.

don’t know

It's all about the bottom line for contractors

Don't know

Provide a simpler code, with reasonable basic anchoring hardware.


49. Rank the effectiveness creating incentives for compliance.

# Answer %




Total 100%

50. You mentioned that creating incentives for compliance would have a positive effect. Do you know of any existing incentive programs?

# Answer %

1 Yes 2%

2 No 98%

Total 100%


51. How could an incentive plan be structured?

Text Response

Insurers and lenders probably would benefit from reduced damage due to increased compliance. Jurisdictions could meet with insurers and lenders to develop incentive programs

To affect insurance rates or tax rates

bid process improvement

Carrot of even have "model" non‐structural offices similar to the Green Business program

subsistence fees

tax credits for residential, insurance incentives,

Don't Know

reduction of insurance rates or repayment of a performance bond to this effect required prior to obtaining a bldg permit

Insurance premiums should account for nonstructural bracing

Not sure

Percentage credit of permit fees when in compliance

Insurance pricing would be good.

no thoughts

Insurance savings

Give tax benefits or reduce insurance rates.

permit cost incentives

Don't know

Don't know

The question never came up before, but it’s a good question. I'm sure with some thought I'd would be able to come with something.

no

through ISO maybe

Based on a percentage of costs for compliance

Reduced insurance premiums


52. Rank the effectiveness assessing penalties for non‐compliance.

# Answer %




Total 100%


53. You stated that assessing penalties for non‐compliance would have a positive effect. Is the existing plan approval process adaptable?

# Answer %

1 Yes 65%

2 No 35%

Total 100%

54. In your opinion, how should penalties be structured?

Text Response

Re inspection fees for not following restraint designs on the plans

fines go up by number of offenses

None

Don't issue necessary permits

Deny permits and then increase fees for resubmittal.

Not sure

Don't Know


Fines.

Based on the importance factor of the facility.

fine the owner/contractor for incompliance

Don't Know

Certificate of occupancy is not issued until all nonstructural items are taken care of.

be enforced

The plan approval process varies widely from state to state and from city to city. Penalties should depend on seismic zone.

non‐issuance of building permit or C of O

don't know

Depending on the type of construction. I.E. High‐rice buildings and Assemblies should have higher penalties. Down to single dwellings being the lowest priority.

based on the cost of compliance

Increasing amounts for # of violations.

No building could receive a final unless full compliance was established

established by Building Official or authority having jurisdiction

set a dollar amount for each non compliant item.

civil penalties would be in place for non compliance in the case of a seismic event; public needs to be educated that penalties exist

No CO


55. Rank the effectiveness of clearly defining who is responsible for compliance in the standards and codes.

# Answer %




Total 100%


56. Rank the effectiveness creating a certification for individuals responsible for ensuring compliance.

# Answer %




Total 100%


57. Who needs to be certified so that compliance will be ensured?

# Answer %

1 Architect 51%


3 Civil engineer 19%








35%







58. What qualifications would be necessary for a person to be certified?

Text Response

Test for specific code knowledge

familiarity with equipment and with codes or regulations

technical expertise

SOMEONE on a project would need to be certified... For smaller residential buildings, it might be the general contractor, and for larger jobs, the architect. The important part is that at least one person be certified on each job site.

go thru a licensing process like contractors do

For Inspectors: good knowledge of the requirements; for Design professionals: detailed understanding of the Code design requirements and sufficient education/experience on the subject; for inspectors: Higher level of training and education of the design and enforcement requirements.

Test to demonstrate a high level of knowledge of the seismic requirements of the Code.

engineering background with testing specific to seismic design

Don't know

EDUCATION AND TESTING

testing

Familiarity with the various codes, substantial knowledge of earthquake engineering, experience(extensive).

testing

Not sure

a clue

completion of appropriate training and/or hands‐on experience

course work

knowledge

familiarity with all types of systems

Training

background education and specific training

Training and code knowledge of required seismic restraints

Education, Familiarity

ability to pass an exam


Possibly a certification from ICC or local code enforcement authority

Specific tested knowledge in the specific field

Don't Know

Attend a periodic training on seismic code requirements (every 5 yrs.)

Trade knowledge

Don't know

to be engineer

special education coursework

pass certification exam, obtain training certificate for related topics


59. Rank the effectiveness creating earthquake insurance incentives to stimulate compliance.

# Answer %




Total 100%

60. You stated that by creating earthquake insurance incentives to stimulate compliance would have a positive effect. How might such earthquake insurance incentives be structured?

Text Response

Require insurance coverage to acknowledge responsibility for design and inspection compliance

Building Department Approved plans submitted to insurer to document compliance

Make regular insurance policies give better coverage for certain types of damage. Earthquake insurance is too rare and too expensive.

In particular, I was thinking about a role for the CEA.


Cheaper rates to owner of building if a special earthquake certificate was granted and show to insurance company

unknown

discounts

Don't know

Reduced rates for buildings that have gone through a check and remediation process

Insurance premiums should vary depending on the extent of nonstructural components and the compliance with bracing for these components

Lower premiums for having the bracing in place.

Importance factor of the facility.

Overall $ always makes the owner more interested

the insurance co. would inspect and rank the structure with the highest rating receiving the best incentive

Money talks. Better than penalties for non‐compliance.

Code compliance or better equates with reduced insurance rates.

lower premiums; rebates

Insurance breaks for buildings that a PE or SE has signed off on as being compliant

Compliant buildings have lower insurance rates. Non compliant buildings have higher insurance rates.

reduced premiums

According to seismic zones, the probability of property damage.

Lower premiums for compliance

cost breaks in policies

don't know

Something similar to requiring sill anchors for houses for better premium rate.

The insurance company would hire a third party specialist to review the design and inspect the project.

Reduced premiums

In California, earthquake insurance is not even an option. The premium is very high, the deductible is prohibitive. After the Northridge earthquake the insurance company determinates How much you should be insured for and what is your deductible. Many home owners would go bankrupt before been able to pay the deductible.

lower rates for proven compliance

Better compliance = lower insurance rate

Credits based on level of compliance and rated by third party.

Require compliance for insurance policy

A clearly defined and measurable savings for the building owner of a compliant building

insurers would need to perform their own inspections prior to insuring

Reduced cost to the owner


A discount on Owner insurance rates

61. Rank the effectiveness of requiring budgeting of nonstructural seismic work in the bid process.

# Answer %




Total 100%


62. Rank the effectiveness of providing detailed design standards to assist in the process of complying.

# Answer %




Total 100%

63. You mentioned that providing detailed design standards to assist in the process of complying would have a positive effect. What, if any, detailed design standards do you know of?

Text Response

Industry and manufacturer's standards and FEMA and ASCE standards provide complete data

none

SMANCA, NUSIG, many specific manufacturer standards. Most are not 100% complete to cover all situations which is part of the problem. SMACNA is based on old code.

The FEMA guidance document is not all that specific. Specific standards with clear instructions such as occurs for anchorage of hot water heaters

SMACNA & other proprietary "pre‐engineered" systems; but often not complete enough to cover all


conditions

There are several for specific industries and situations. Yes, they are very thorough.

I do not know any. However, in my opinion, the current design requirements, specifications are too restrictive and complicated and not clear. It is due to the fact that design requirements have been formulated and greatly influenced few professionals who are experts in heavy industrial, power generating facilities but who do not understand the behavior of typical and more common structures. It is my opinion that, the design requirements have unreasonably high magnitudes without proper justification. They need to be geared towards more common/typical structures and better/clearer classification of items to be anchored & their seismic design factors. This would provide better and more economical anchorages for typical/common structures. It (importance factors for non‐structural elements) can be accordingly adjusted upwards for critical structures/facilities. This is the current intent of the code but the current starting level of design loads are unreasonably (without any proper justification for it) high where it leads to unnecessary heavy anchorage design and framing.

Loos & Co., Inc. Manual of Code Compliance Guidelines for Earthquake Resistance of Architectural, Mechanical and Electrical Components and Systems

none that I know of...but the OPA's approved by OSHPD are typically useless in my opinion since they are not design procedures

OSHPD Pre‐Approvals, generally complete

No

Don't know

Anchorage of cladding systems to structural supports

AWWA standards for water utilities.

The pipe, conduit, duct bracing requirements are still not clear enough. To simplify this for everyone there should be good clarity on which size items need bracing, what if there is a bunch of items on a trapeze, etc. To make this truly useful, though it needs to be extremely simple so the use of charts and graphs is minimized. A NUSIG type document, except simpler, and including good details should be available through FEMA or ASCE. I believe that the EOR would still have to "own" the use of such a document, and all stakeholders in the construction process will have to be well educated that it is not a "cookbook".

none that are easy to follow and clearly laid out

I consider the provisions of the IBC/ASCE 7 to be complete. However, they are difficult to understand, poorly referenced in the remainder of the code, and located in sections of the publications that are rarely visited by design professionals.

no

no

SMACNA standard would work for ducts (book). As for equipment, usually the manufactures installation instruction would have details on seismic restrains.

I am aware only of the code which is often very poorly written.

Anchorage detailing on plans of non‐structural items: ie. lighting, HVAC equip., shelving, etc.

Suspended ceiling requirements in ASCE, ASTM and CISCA standards are pretty complete and


prescriptive.

water heater bracing

T‐bar ceiling details from manufacturers

Standard details should be provided with supplementary job specific details. Above all a careful coordinating effort among the various design discipline is essential for the success of a project.

I don't know where to look for these standards, I just have used them in my experience

Detailed shop drawings with specs on installation.

Ceiling and HVAC standard details

There are a variety of standard details used, but they are not typically labeled as "seismic resistant"

No

no, none

Water heater bracing

example: DSA approved ceiling system details

My suggestion is to put specific design parameters in the International Building Code.

suspended ceilings, mep anchorage, cabinet anchorage, etc.

none

Design cut sheets

Don't know

IBC

The current design standards are too generic, requiring significant design effort for small items. Provide simpler code.


64. Rank the effectiveness of increasing the availability of qualified specialty contractors to ensure compliance.

# Answer %




Total 100%

65. You stated that an increase in the availability of qualified specialty contractors to ensure compliance would have a ${q://QID156/ChoiceGroup/SelectedChoices}. Are well‐qualified specialty contractors who can ensure comp...

# Answer %

1 Yes 48%

2 No 52%

Total 100%


66. Rank the effectiveness of requiring equipment suppliers to design and install seismic anchorage and bracing systems.

# Answer %




Total 100%


67. Rank the importance of first hand knowledge of earthquake effects.

# Answer %




Total 100%


68. Rank the importance of regulatory issues in achieving compliance.

# Answer %




Total 100%


69. Rank the importance of design process issues in achieving compliance.

# Answer %




Total 100%


70. What is single most important action that you believe would result in widespread use of seismic bracing of nonstructural items, in a manner which conforms to codes and design guidelines?

Text Response

Better educate A/M/E/P design professionals and specialty subcontractors

Contractors have the perception that seismic anchorage requirements are overkill, thus not fully necessary.

No recommendation

Don't issue permits until compliance occurs

Re‐write the code to eliminate stupid provisions. Make the code "two level", one for life safety, and one for performance. Then, enforce the code. For performance, require certification (either via ASME stress check, or simplified but reliable cookbook methods. Omit the requirement for lateral bracing in most situations. Change the "12" rule for rod hangers.

major earthquake with significant nonstructural damage and then owner and public outcry

Reasonable level of design loads and better education of all parties involved with non‐structural components' anchorage.

Require a design professional to certify that the seismic design/installation of the non‐structural components complies with the requirements of the Code.

placing the responsibility directly in the hands of the professional or record and not in the hands of contractors or product manufacturers

Owner's education

Established standards

Increase plan reviewer and building inspector education.

building inspection

Clearly define who is responsible for designing seismic bracing of what non structural items.

Owners of buildings should be required to provide a detailed nonstructural bracing program prior to receiving a building permit and the certificate of occupancy for the buildings should not be granted unless all items of the program are verified.

Education

Education by seminars and workshops.

cost

Make is a governing code

After education, have in place well structured guidelines with a ranking system in each of several categories, and insurance rates tied directly thereto. If people know the "cost benefit ratio" of each item, they will do what they can, even if they can't do it all.

Education of those responsible for design and installation.


Specific design fees

Make it part of the equipment being installed

If building officials would deny building permits if seismic restraints are not indicated on the plans.

Fully detailed designs in the drawings and complete and accurate seismic performance requirements in the specifications.

Have a specific chapter in the building code that addresses it.

education of designers, owners, inspectors, insurance agents, and the general public

Including it in the original scope of services

Education of the design community, owners, and contractors of the requirements and the benefits.

A large earthquake that causes lots of damage

Clearer language in building and MEP codes delegating responsibility for design and specifying QC/QA requirements.

Make these requirements a high priority in building officials offices. Don't give permits or final acceptance in the field without code conformity.

Enforcement by Building Official.

Strict code enforcement.

Training ‐ certification

design requirements for permitting

building codes

Safety of personnel during an earthquake and Life Safety equipment would still function

Require that bracing details be clearly shown on plans

Certify the design architect, engineer and the installation contractor.

showing lack of compliance would cause severe damage

Incentives for compliance

Adding Sections in the Mechanical Codes dealing with seismic restraints. Right now the Mechanical Code wording on seismic restraints is very weak or non‐existent.

Educating building owners of the potential liability from death or injury from non‐conforming seismic bracing.

Inspections by Building Inspectors, Contractors, Architects, Specialty Installers, etc. of detailed anchorage requirements.

Enforcement in the plan check and inspection stages.

more training for design engineers

Education Outreach!

A major intensive educational campaign directed at this issue to the design, enforcement and installation professionals.


Education as to the requirements

Education

education of the possible injuries & deaths that could be caused by not anchoring these items properly

Education of local AHj's

Simplifying the standards to a one size fits all

public education

not having rules be too long like this survey

Clarify and simplify confusing code provisions, notably ASCE 7 standards

A certificate of compliance from architect team that such bracing have been reviewed and in general compliance with the contract document

litigation

Consolidate applicable technical standards and have typical details to import on to the plans.

Simple/understandable standards/details.

Ease of use, low cast to install, quickly to be done.

Insurance companies require it.

Proper design and adequate inspection will solve the problem for permitted installations ‐ something we do now. The only problem in our city is those that install equipment without permits.

Building departments and plan reviewers requiring these items to be specified before approval of plans.

Education and codes

Don't know

Stop work orders

educate designers, contractors, owners, and inspectors

Education

Supply free training to all Building departments and require the Design community to attend training as part of their license renewal. We have design people submit work based on the 1994 codes and have never purchased a new code. Also designers are always reassured to reduce costs by owner. So requirements for designers to include these designs for a building would help.

educate the folks building the building


Educate design professionals, regulators (plans examiners and inspectors), equipment suppliers, and general contractors of the specific requirements; have code requirements that are required to be stated on the plans

Training.

providing an approved complete design with specific details that reflect the actual construction being used as part of the plans and specs

Training certification requirements for engineers, contractors & inspectors

insurance underwriters requiring it

Law

Regulatory issues

training

Education and enforcement

Provide a simpler "cookbook" type code. The code needs to be easily read and understood by design professionals, contractors, and code officials.

Appendix B, Structural Engineers Page B‐1


Appendix B Structural Engineers Electronic Survey Results 1.0 Introduction

This appendix provides a summary of data gathered from structural engineers, using the on line Qualtrics survey tool. Questions are listed in the order that they appeared to respondents.

2. In the previous question you selected the option: Structural Engineer



1 Years 20.24 13.09

Total 20.24 13.09


# Answer Response %

1 California 32 56%

2 Utah 17 30%

3 Washington 2 4%

4 Other (please name) 6 11%

Total 57 100%



# Answer %

1 California 60%


3 Washington 6%

Total 100%


# Answer Response %




0 0%

4 Some college 0 0%


19 33%


38 67%

Total 57 100%




BSCE M.S. Civil Engineering ‐ Structural

Civil Engineering Ph.D.


Civil Engineer PhD Civil Engineering

BSCE Master's in structural

Civil Engineering master's in Structural Engineering

B.S., Structural Engineering Masters, structural engineering

Civil Engineering MSCE, MBA Project Management

engineering PhD ‐ Structures

Civil Engineering MS Structural Eng.

architectural engineering MS Structures UC Berkeley

Civil Engineering Structural Emphasis

MSCE

building engineering MS

BS civil engineering MS CE, structural engineering

Civil Engineering MS Structural Engineering

BS in Civil Engineering Masters ‐ Structural Engineering

B.S. Architectural Engineering

Master's Structural eng

Civil Engineering Master's

Structural Engineering Master's‐Structural Engineering

Master's Structural Eng.

MS Structural Engineering

M.S. ‐ Structural Engineering

Masters ‐ structural

Masters in Civil Engineering ‐ Structural Focus

MBA

MS Structural Eng

Masters

MS Structural


Masters in Structural Engineering

MBA

architectural eng'ing

MS, structural engng


Civil Engineering



# Answer Response %

1 Federal Government buildings 22 39%

2 Local or State Government buildings 25 44%

3 Emergency Services, Fire, Police 20 35%

4 Healthcare 28 49%

5 Utilities 18 32%

6 K‐12 Schools 23 40%

7 Universities 27 47%

8 Office and Commercial 48 84%

9 Industrial 41 72%

10 Residential 32 56%

11 High Occupancy, convention centers 14 25%

12 Others (please list) 6 11%


Bridges

Recreational

Historic structures of archaic materials

Water and Waste Water

Water treatment facilities

sport facilities, jails

Statistic Value

Total Responses 57




1 Years 20.31 12.99

Total 20.31 12.99


# Answer Response %

1 Yes 46 81%

2 No 11 19%

Total 57 100%

10. Are you familiar with any codes, design guidelines, or standards that govern the installation of nonstructural and equipment seismic restraints in buildings

# Answer Response %

1 Yes 47 82%

2 No 10 18%

Total 57 100%


#1 #2 #3 #4 #5


ASCE 7 SMACNA ASCE 41

1997 UBC ASCE 7 ‐ 05

ASCE 7‐05 CBC 2007 IBC 2006 UBC 1997 AISC Steel Construction Manual

IBC ‐current and past

ASCE‐7 ‐ current and past

UBC ‐ past editions

BOCA ‐ past editions

SBC ‐ past editions

UBC '97 IBC '06 FEMA 356 ASCE 7 ASCE 41

2006 IBC ASCE7‐05



ASCE 7‐05 Seismic Restrain Manual by SMACNA

CBC ASCE AISC ACI NDS

ASCE 7 2005 CBC 2007 IBC 2006 NDS AISC

1997 UBC 2006 IBC ASCE‐7 older version of UBC and IBC

Uniform Building Code (1973‐1997)

International Building Code (2000‐2006)

ASCE 7.02, 7.05 California Building Code 1998, 2001, 2007

CBC 2007 IBC 2006 + Referenced standards

CBC 2001 UBC 1997 UBC 1994

"61 ‐ "97 UBC "00 ‐ "06 IBC FEMA 178 ‐ ASCE 31

ATC 33 ‐ ASCE 41 Los Angeles City Building Code

UBC, 1997 and earlier

ASCE 7 IBC NEHRP Provisions

SEAOC Bluebook NFPA‐13

ASCE 7‐05 ASCE 31 ASCE 41 NFPA 13

ASCE 7 FEMA 356 ASCE 31 ASCE 41 FEMA design Guides

California Building Code (multiple versions)


ASCE 7‐05 NFPA SMACNA

UBC ASCE 7 RMI IBC

IBC UBC CBC ALA

CBC 2007, IBC 2006, ASCE 7‐05 etc

Title 24 Past UBC codes & Title 24

97 UBC

ASCE 7‐05 California Building Code



IBC

IBC UBC

CBC ASCE IBC

IBC 2006 ASCE 07 ACI 318 & 530 AISC 360 & 341 NDS

1997 UBC ASCE 7‐05 ASCE 41‐06



ASCE 7

ASCE 07

ASCE 7‐05 IBC 06

IBC 2006 ASCE/SEI 31‐03

NEHRP Provisions UBC IBC SMACNA ASCE 31

IBC2006

IBC ASCE 7 TI 809‐04

ASCE 7‐05 IBC 2006 ACI 318‐05 Appendix D

ASME B31.3 2002 (somewhat)

ASCE 7 ‐ 05 and 02 UBC 1997

IBC 2006 IBC 2003 Oregon Structural Specialty Code

CBC 2007

IBC ASCE 7 ASCE 31 ASCE 41

IBC/ASCE 7

ASCE 7 IBC 2006 SMACNA



ASCE 7 IBC 2006 1997 UBC

IBC ASCE 7



familiar



4‐ Very Familiar


Responses Mean


0 1 11 31 14 57 4.02

2


0 1 9 27 20 57 4.16


3


14 12 13 12 5 56 2.68

4 ASCE 41‐06 25 10 5 10 4 54 2.22

5 NFPA 38 11 1 1 0 51 1.31

Statistic The International Building Code


ASCE 31‐03 (Seismic Evaluation of Existing

Buildings)

ASCE 41‐06

NFPA

Mean 4.02 4.16 2.68 2.22 1.31

Variance 0.52 0.56 1.71 1.95 0.38

Standard Deviation

0.72 0.75 1.31 1.40 0.62

Total Responses

57 57 56 54 51

13. When constructing a building, are you required to abide by:


Responses Mean



53 0 1 54 1.04


4 ASCE 41‐06 4 24 24 52 2.38

5 NFPA 6 13 31 50 2.50




Buildings)

ASCE 41‐06

NFPA

Mean 1.00 1.04 2.25 2.38 2.50

Variance 0.00 0.07 0.39 0.40 0.50

Standard Deviation

0.00 0.27 0.63 0.63 0.71

Total 56 54 51 52 50



Text Response

Cannot procure a permit (theoretically), exposure to claims


don't know

Don't know

Don't know

'Don't Know'

Don't Know

Don't know

'Don't Know'


civil penalties (lawsuits)

None ‐ though you may not get a building permit

Projects that don’t comply are not approved, field inspectors will stop projects for not compliance if under construction

No Building Permit will be issued

Loss of license to practice structural engineering

Are we talking about a new building, a retrofit? Are we talking about "penalties" in the IBC/ASCE 7, or in the CAC?

Will not get a building permit. Could be legal penalties if found negligent.

loss of license, liability

don't know

Compliance with the IBC is required. Compliance with ASCE 7 is only as referenced by the IBC.

Don't know

Don’t know

Don't Know

Don't Know

Don't Know


Don't Know

DOPL Reprimand

don't know


Don't Know

Don't Know

you could lose your license

Design is not according to code

Don't Know

Penalties could be loss of license or loss in a law suit. Most likely none. ASCE 7 is part of the CBC


The building permit will be denied. In extreme cases of gross negligence or repeated noncompliance, a complaint can be filed and the engineer's license can be suspended or revoked.


Increased engineering time during construction and design

You don't get a building Permit. Other than that, I don't know.

Don't know

Varies pending degree of non‐compliance, stage of project, and who's prosecuting.

Death by hanging.

Liability risk ‐ don't know of code "penalties"

don't know

Compliance is required before building permit can be issued.

no permit

don't know

Different seismic design response coefficients, spectral mapped acceleration, anchorage force requirements

Don't know



Text Response

Exposure to claim, cannot procure a building permit


don't know

Redesign

Don't know specifically, possibly disciplinary action

'Don't Know'

Don't Know

Don’t know

'Don't Know'


civil lawsuits

No Civil penalties. Potential failure to get building permit. Potential litigation associated witn nonconformance with the standard of care

Projects that comply are not approved for construction during review, field inspectors will stop construction if noncompliance found at construction site

as adopted by the CBC it is required for building permit

loss of license to practice SE

see previous answers

Same as ASCE 7.

yes

don't know

Engineering License revoked and possible fines.

Don't know

don’t know

Don't know.

Don't Know

Loss of license, possible prosecution

Don't Know

DOPL Reprimand

don't know



Don't know the exact penalty. I assume some kind of fine, never been fined yet.

Loss License

could lose your license

design is not according to code

Loss of professional license

Same as ASCE 7 above. It is most part of the CBC


The same as for ASCE 7.


Everything gets design by an engineer if it over 500 lbs or over 20 lbs and 5ft off the ground

You don't get a building permit. Other than that, I don't know

Disciplinary actions if someone catches you or there is a failure

Varies pending degree of non‐compliance, stage of the project, and who's prosecuting.

Liability risk, denial of building permit.

Violators will be subject to penalties as prescribed by law.

Building permit will not be issued until compliance is demonstrated.

no permit

failure to receive permit

basis of permit cannot be violated

fines, disciplinary actions


# Answer Response %

1 Yes 23 41%

2 No 33 59%

Total 56 100%



Text Response

ATC

Seismic Restrain Manual by SMACNA

ASTM, CISCA

FEMA 74

NFPA‐13, SMACNA Guidelines

NEHRP 2003

FEMA 450, FEMA 357 ‐ ASCE 41, FEMA 310 ‐ ASCE 31

SMACNA, proprietary system catalogs (Mason, Hilti, ISAT, et al.)

ASCE 31 and 41 were originally funded by FEMA.

FEMA 356, FEMA 412,413.414

SMACNA, Industry‐specific guidelines, ASME code (the best)

OSHPD, SMACNA

SMACNA


ASCE‐7

SMACNA manual, ASHRAE seismic design guidelines, Department of the Interior Nonstructural guidelines, Tri Services manuals

I know that NFPA‐13 has some guidelines for bracing of fire sprinkler lines, but I do not know the specifics.

NEHRP (National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program)

ASCE 31 FEMA 356

ATC 29, SEAONC, EERI Seminars

TI 809‐04, IBC, ASCE 7

Telcordia (Bellcore) Generic Requirement specifications for telecommunications equipment (not for restraints, for robust equipment) SEMI Guidelines ‐ for semiconductor equipment

ASCE 7‐05 provides the design loads. I'm not aware of any design guides though.

FEMA 413‐ Installing Seismic Restraints for Electrical Equipment

FEMA 450, FEMA 461, FEMA 412. FEMA 414, FEMA 395, FEMA 396, FEMA 397, FEMA 398, FEMA 399

California Building Code, FEMA 310



# Answer Response %

1 1‐ not at all important 1 2%

2 2 8 15%

3 3 10 19%

4 4‐ moderately important 16 30%

5 5 6 11%

6 6 7 13%

7 7‐ extremely important 6 11%

Total 54 100%


# Answer Response %


2 2 2 4%

3 3 1 2%


5 5 13 24%

6 6 16 30%


Total 54 100%



# Answer Response %


2 2 2 4%

3 3 1 2%


5 5 8 15%

6 6 12 23%


Total 53 100%


21. In your geographic area, how important is the installation of seismic anchorage and the bracing of building components such as electrical transformers and electrical switchgear, and mechanical equipment.

# Answer Response %


2 2 2 4%

3 3 1 2%


5 5 6 12%

6 6 13 25%


Total 52 100%


# Answer Response %


2 2 0 0%

3 3 5 9%


5 5 7 13%

6 6 11 21%


Total 53 100%



# Answer Response %


2 2 1 2%

3 3 1 2%


5 5 10 20%

6 6 13 25%


Total 51 100%

Statistic Value

Mean 5.71

Variance 2.33

Standard Deviation 1.53

Total Responses 51

24. If a major earthquake were to occur in your area and if nonstructural or equipment items (such as those defined earlier) were NOT anchored or braced in a building, to what extent do you believe injuries or death would result

# Answer Response %

1 Injuries or death definitely would not happen

0 0%

2 Injuries or death probably would not happen

4 8%

3 Injuries or death may or may not happen 6 12%

4 Injuries or death probably would happen 28 54%

5 Injuries or death definitely would happen 14 27%

Total 52 100%



# Answer Response %

1 Major damage definitely would not happen

1 2%

2 Major damage probably would not happen

8 15%

3 Major damage may or may not happen 13 25%

4 Major damage probably would happen 18 35%

5 Major damage definitely would happen 12 23%

Total 52 100%



# Answer %






Total 100%


# Answer Response %


47 90%

2 Structural collapse during a moderate earthquake

5 10%

Total 52 100%



# Answer Response %

1 Architect 44 85%










39 75%








# Answer Response %

x1 Architect 11 23%

x2 Structural engineer 23 49%

x3 Civil engineer 0 0%

x4 Mechanical engineer 0 0%

x5 Electrical engineer 1 2%

x6 General contractor 1 2%

x7 Building subcontractor 0 0%

x8 Equipment manufacturer 0 0%

x9 Equipment supplier 0 0%


3 6%

x11 Building inspector 3 6%

x12 Building plan reviewer 0 0%

x13 Construction project manager 0 0%

x14 Overall design project manager 3 6%

x15 Other (please specify) 2 4%

Total 47 100%



# Answer Response %

1 Architect 1 2%










4 8%






Total 48 100%



# Answer %

1 Architect 28%


3 Civil engineer 4%








0%






Total 100%


32. Who do you believe is responsible for compliance with nonstructural seismic safety design standards? [Please rank order your responses with a '1' representing the party most responsible for compliance, etc.]

# Answer 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Responses

1 Architect 12 8 2 4 3 1 1 0 2 3 2 0 0 0 0 38

2 Structural engineer 11 9 4 8 4 1 0 0 0 2 1 0 0 2 0 42

3 Civil engineer 0 1 1 2 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 3 2 2 1 16

4 Mechanical engineer 2 6 9 4 5 3 1 2 1 1 0 2 1 0 0 37

5 Electrical engineer 0 2 8 6 3 5 3 1 3 0 1 0 2 1 0 35

6 General contractor 7 3 1 6 8 1 4 4 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 36


0 1 5 2 4 2 0 3 3 3 2 0 1 1 0 27


2 1 7 3 0 2 1 2 2 2 2 3 1 1 0 29

9 Equipment supplier 1 2 0 6 2 1 1 2 5 4 1 2 2 0 0 29


4 3 6 3 4 4 3 5 1 1 3 0 0 0 0 37

11 Building inspector 3 6 2 3 3 5 7 4 4 1 0 1 0 0 0 39


4 2 1 0 6 4 5 3 0 2 2 0 0 0 0 29


0 2 0 2 1 3 3 2 5 0 2 3 1 0 0 24



# Answer %

1 Architect 19%


3 Civil engineer 0%








6%






Total 100%



# Answer %





Total 100%




Total 47.96 24.42



# Answer %


46%


54%

3 It was important to me in my professional capacity 58%


15%


10%

6 It was required by design professionals 73%


19%


40%


27%

10 It is a strictly enforced provision 33%

11 Building inspectors enforce these measures 50%


17%


17%


4%






# Answer Responses



20




5













Total



# Answer %


2 The likelihood of a damaging earthquake in this area is too low to justify complying with the standards.

11%

3 It's not against the law to fail to comply with the standards; compliance will happen when it's the law.

7%


20%

5 It is too expensive to comply with the standards. 33%


49%


8 The standards are too difficult to understand. 24%


24%


22%


18%


40%

13 There is a communication breakdown between everyone involved in constructing the building that contributes to noncompliance.

47%

14 There are liability concerns that prevent compliance. 0%


51%


29%

17 Compliance just falls through the cracks. 33%


24%


44%


20 No one is qualified to certify compliance. 4%

21 The likely consequences of an earthquake in my area are to minimal to justify the cost and effort of compliance.

0%






older design standards

Mechanical or electrical subcontractors sometimes

Inadequate field coordination between sub‐trades may preclude full conformance.


39. Please rank order the reasons why you think noncompliance occurs. Include your own reasons in the ordering if you add any to the list. If there are more than five reasons in the list, rank only the top five. 1= Most important.

# Answer Responses



2

x3 2











17





x18 Penalties for noncompliance aren't severe enough to make compliance a high priority. 10




0




When design drawings are not coordinated, contractor may find installation of bracing extremely difficult. Thus any field solution may be compromised.


40. Are you personally aware of buildings having been constructed in your area that were not compliant with nonstructural and equipment seismic safety design standards?

# Answer %

1 Yes 49%

2 No 51%

Total 100%



# Answer %

1 Very common 29%

2 Occasional 67%

3 Rare 5%

Total 100%


42. In cases where nonstructural items are not adequately anchored and braced for earthquake loads, what are the primary factors that could lead to good design and construction practices? (Please check as many as applicable.)

# Answer %


43%


57%


73%


57%


68%


70%

7 More federal grants for mitigation of nonstructural hazards during remodels could lead to good design and construction practices.

7%



36%

9


20%


18%


43%


41%

13


18%



Simplification of requirements, increased clarity in requirements and the goals of the requirements

Better bracing systems with simple to design connections to the structure. Minimal effect on the structural system = easier construction practices = simple installation = low cost = no reason not to comply.

Communication between design professional, contractor and inspector can ensure qualify work



# Answer Responses


13


18


26



24


26


3


12


9


7


17


15


7


Total


44. to 46 not applicable to SE’s.

47. Rank the effectiveness of education to increase familiarity with the standards.

# Answer %




Total 100%


48. Who needs to be educated so that compliance will increase?

# Answer %

1 Architect 27%


3 Civil engineer 0%








8%





15 Owner 27%


Total 100%


49. Rank the effectiveness of enhancing enforcement of the current standards.

# Answer %




Total 100%



Text Response

Building inspectors have to pay greater attention to these issues

By training building inspectors to look for and require that appropriate standards be followed

More time and resources for review of construction documents and more field oversight

Require prime professionals to be responsible for design of non structural bracing

Building Official familiarity with code requirements

Require sign off from building inspector that NS seismic bracing has been completed. Require nonstructural seismic bracing observation by the engineer of record.

better plan review and construction inspection

Uniform consistent enforcement by building departments and inspectors.

Typically City and deputy inspectors do not understand the significance of proper anchorage and they often negligent. Good enforcement leads greater attention to the design, installation of anchorages.In California, health and education projects have high level enforcement but still there are cases where a better inspections and enforcement is desirable.

Trained plan checkers and building inspectors

building inspections

Better Educated Inspectors who know what to look for

highly trained special inspectors required to be retained by the project owner/developer

Occupancy permit should be denied if nonstructural bracing is not adequately implemented

Building Inspectors being educated to know what the standards are so that they can enforce the standards in the field.

No compliance = No permit

increased discussion on these issues; more education of professional, contractors and inspectors

Educating building inspectors

Anchorage of nonstructural items becomes a line‐item for the project inspector, and it is enforced.

Better plan review and required inspections

have penalties for non‐compliance

Better enforcement of QC/QA requirements of IBC Chapter 17. Note that many government clients in poorly regulated areas request designers to omit the provisions of chapter 17.

Building inspectors familiarity could be increased through education and they could target such connections and do various "field tests" that ensure proper installation.

Enforcement by Building Official ‐ Plan Reviewer.


Owners of non‐compliant buildings would have to pay a fine, exceeding the cost of compliance.

Making sure that the regulatory agency personnel know what is required.

periodic inspection to maintain certificate of occupancy

The prime design professional must help coordinate contract documents from the design team members to ensure compliance with standards.

plan check official

Plan checker review

51. Rank the effectiveness of reducing financial constraints associated with compliance.

# Answer %




Total 100%



Text Response

Lack of dedicated compensation associated with this work for design professionals, cost of inspection associated with compliance.

unclear bid documents, lack of cost allocation for this work

Professional design fees

The cheaper it is to comply the more likely the owner will spend the money to comply

Design costs and construction costs

It's simple. If something costs less, more people will do it.

If it is difficult to design, then it is difficult to construct and will cost more money. Simple connection designs will help make everything cheaper and this will make installers want to comply.


Text Response

Provide guidelines for professional fees associated with nonstructural component bracing design. Rationalize inspection requirements.

line item bidding of bracing, consistent code enforcement

See above

Perhaps reducing insurance costs for compliant buildings would help

Keep codes simpler.


54. Rank the effectiveness of creating incentives for compliance.

# Answer %




Total 100%


55. You mentioned that creating incentives for compliance would have a positive effect. Do you know of any existing incentive programs? (Note only 18 respondents answered question 55)

# Answer %

1 Yes 0%

2 No 100%

Total 100%

56. How could an incentive plan be structured?

Text Response

Insurers and lenders probably would benefit from reduced damage due to increased compliance. Jurisdictions could meet with insurers and lenders to develop incentive programs

bid process improvement

Don't Know

reduction of insurance rates or repayment of a performance bond to this effect required prior to obtaining a bldg permit

Insurance premiums should account for nonstructural bracing

Not sure

Percentage credit of permit fees when in compliance

Insurance pricing would be good.

no thoughts

Insurance savings

Give tax benefits or reduce insurance rates.


57. Rank the effectiveness of assessing penalties for non‐compliance.

# Answer %




Total 100%

58. In your opinion, how should penalties be structured?

Text Response

Don't Know

Fines.

fine the owner/contractor for incompliance

Don't Know

Certificate of occupancy is not issued until all nonstructural items are taken care of.

be enforced

The plan approval process varies widely from state to state and from city to city. Penalties should depend on seismic zone.



# Answer %




Total 100%


60. Rank the effectiveness of creating certification for individuals responsible for ensuring compliance.

# Answer %




Total 100%



# Answer %

1 Architect 40%










33%







Text Response

Test for specific code knowledge

familiarity with equipment and with codes or regulations

technical expertise

For Inspectors: good knowledge of the requirements; for Design professionals: detailed understanding of the Code design requirements and sufficient education/experience on the subject; for inspectors: Higher level of training and education of the design and enforcement requirements.

testing

testing

Not sure

Possibly a certification from ICC or local code enforcement authority

special education coursework


63. Rank the effectiveness of creating earthquake insurance incentives to stimulate compliance.

# Answer %




Total 100%


64. You stated that by creating earthquake insurance incentives to stimulate compliance would have a positive effect. How might such earthquake insurance incentives be structured?

Text Response

Require insurance coverage to acknowledge responsibility for design and inspection compliance

Building Department Approved plans submitted to insurer to document compliance

Don't know

Reduced rates for buildings that have gone through a check and remediation process

Insurance premiums should vary depending on the extent of nonstructural components and the compliance with bracing for these components

Lower premiums for having the bracing in place.

Overall $ always makes the owner more interested

the insurance co. would inspect and rank the structure with the highest rating receiving the best incentive

Money talks. Better than penalties for non‐compliance.

Code compliance or better equates with reduced insurance rates.

Insurance breaks for buildings that a PE or SE has signed off on as being compliant

Compliant buildings have lower insurance rates. Non compliant buildings have higher insurance rates.

reduced premiums

According to seismic zones, the probability of property damage.

Something similar to requiring sill anchors for houses for better premium rate.



# Answer %




Total 100%


67. You mentioned that providing detailed design standards to assist in the process of complying. What, if any, detailed design standards do you know of?

Text Response

Industry and manufacturer's standards and FEMA and ASCE standards provide complete data

SMANCA, NUSIG, many specific manufacturer standards. Most are not 100% complete to cover all situations which is part of the problem. SMACNA is based on old code.

SMACNA & other proprietary "pre‐engineered" systems; but often not complete enough to cover all conditions

There are several for specific industries and situations. Yes, they are very thorough.

I do not know any. However, in my opinion, the current design requirements, specifications are too restrictive and complicated and not clear. It is due to the fact that design requirements have been formulated and greatly influenced few professionals who are experts in heavy industrial, power generating facilities but who do not understand the behavior of typical and more common structures. It is my opinion that, the design requirements have unreasonably high magnitudes without proper justification. They need to be geared towards more common/typical structures and better/clearer classification of items to be anchored & their seismic design factors. This would provide better and more economical anchorages for typical/common structures. Ip (importance factors for non‐structural elements) can be accordingly adjusted upwards for critical structures/facilities. This is the current intent of the code but the current starting level of design loads are unreasonably (without any proper justification for it) high where it leads to unnecessary heavy anchorage design and framing.

OSHPD Pre‐Approvals, generally complete

No

Don't know

Anchorage of cladding systems to structural supports

The pipe, conduit, duct bracing requirements are still not clear enough. To simplify this for everyone there should be good clarity on which size items need bracing, what if there is a bunch of items on a trapeze, etc. To make this truly useful, though it needs to be extremely simple so the use of charts and graphs is minimized. A NUSIG type document, except simpler, and including good details should be available through FEMA or ASCE. I believe that the EOR would still have to "own" the use of such a document, and all stakeholders in the construction process will have to be well educated that it is not a "cookbook".

none that are easy to follow and clearly laid out

I consider the provisions of the IBC/ASCE 7 to be complete. However, they are difficult to understand, poorly referenced in the remainder of the code, and located in sections of the publications that are rarely visited by design professionals.

Standard details should be provided with supplementary job specific details. Above all a careful coordinating effort among the various design discipline is essential for the success of a project.

IBC



# Answer %




Total 100%


70. Rank the importance of first hand knowledge of earthquake effects in achieving compliance.

# Answer %




Total 100%



# Answer %




Total 100%



Text Response

Better educate A/M/E/P design professionals and specialty subcontractors

Contractors have the perception that seismic anchorage requirements are overkill, thus not fully necessary.

Re‐write the code to eliminate stupid provisions. Make the code "two level", one for life safety, and one for performance. Then, enforce the code. For performance, require certification (either via ASME stress check, or simplified but reliable cookbook methods. Omit the requirement for lateral bracing in most situations. Change the "12" rule for rod hangers.

Reasonable level of design loads and better education of all parties involved with non‐structural components' anchorage.

Owner's education

Established standards

Increase plan reviewer and building inspector education.

building inspection

Clearly define who is responsible for designing seismic bracing of what non structural items.

Owners of buildings should be required to provide a detailed nonstructural bracing program prior to receiving a building permit and the certificate of occupancy for the buildings should not be granted unless all items of the program are verified.

Education

cost

Make is a governing code

After education, have in place well structured guidelines with a ranking system in each of several categories, and insurance rates tied directly thereto. If people know the "cost benefit ratio" of each item, they will do what they can, even if they can't do it all.

Education of those responsible for design and installation.

Specific design fees

Make it part of the equipment being installed

If building officials would deny building permits if seismic restraints are not indicated on the plans.

Fully detailed designs in the drawings and complete and accurate seismic performance requirements in the specifications.

Including it in the original scope of services

Education of the design community, owners, and contractors of the requirements and the benefits.

A large earthquake that causes lots of damage


Clearer language in building and MEP codes delegating responsibility for design and specifying QC/QA requirements.

Make these requirements a high priority in building officials offices. Don't give permits or final acceptance in the field without code conformity.

Enforcement by Building Official.

Strict code enforcement.

Require that bracing details be clearly shown on plans

A certificate of compliance from architect team that such bracing have been reviewed and in general compliance with the contract document

Education and enforcement

Appendix C, Building Code Officials Page C‐1


Appendix C Building Code Officials Electronic Survey

1.0 Introduction

This appendix provides a summary of data gathered from building code officials, using the on line Qualtrics survey tool. Questions are listed in the order that they appeared to respondents.


# Answer Response %

1 Facility/Building owner 0 0%

2 Facility manager 0 0%

4 Architect 0 0%



7 Mechanical or Electrical engineer 0 0%

9 General Contractor 0 0%

10 Building Subcontractor 0 0%

11 Equipment manufacturer (please specify the type of equipment you manufacture, e.g., ductwork bracing)

0 0%


0 0%




17 University professor (please specify field of expertise)

0 0%

18 Other (SEE NOTES) 0 0%

Total 25 100%

3. How many years have you been employed?


1 Years 19.53 8.98

Total 19.53 8.98


# Answer %

1 California 100%

2 Utah 0%

3 Washington 0%

4 Other (please name) 0%

Total 100%


# Answer %

1 California 100%


3 Washington 0%

Total 100%



# Answer %

1 Less than high school 0%

2 High school graduate or equivalent 0%


5%

4 Some college 19%


43%


33%

Total 100%




engineering structural MS ‐ CIVIL ENGR

Bach of ARCH MPA

Civil Engineering Master's Structural Engineering

Management MS Structural Engineering

Geological Engineering MS Civil Engineering

architecture Master‐ Civil/ structural

Civil Engineering

Architecture


# Answer Response %




4 Healthcare 8 38%


5 Utilities 5 24%

6 K‐12 Schools 6 29%



9 Industrial 17 81%





amusements rides etc.

HIGHWAY DESIGN

Explosives Manufacturing

Hazardous Material usage/storage: Bioresearch;

Retail, semiconductor,

Hotels/Motels, Resorts



1 Years 24.52 7.92

Total 24.52 7.92


# Answer %

1 Yes 100%

2 No 0%

Total 100%


10. Are you familiar with any codes, design guidelines, or standards that govern the installation of nonstructural and equipment seismic restraints in buildings?

# Answer %

1 Yes 90%

2 No 10%

Total 100%


#1 #2 #3 #4 #5

labc

2007 CALIFORNIA BLDG CODE

2007 CALIFORNIA MECHANICAL CODE

2007 CALIFORNIA PLUMBING CODE

2007 CALIFORNIA ELECTRICAL CODE

2005 CALIFORNIA ENERGY CODE

2007 CBC 2007 CEC 2007 CMC ASCE 7‐05

2007 CBC

ASCE 7‐05 UBC IBC CBC UMC

2001 California Building Code Section 1632



CBC2007

LA City Bldg Code ASCE 7 AISC ACI


Universal Building Code

Universal Pluming Code

ASCE 7‐05 ACI 318‐05 ASTM C635 ASTM C636 CISCA for Seismic Zones 3‐4

ICC UBC

CA Building Code CA Plumbing Code CA Mechanical Code

CBC ASCE 7‐05

CBC ASCE07‐05


ASCE 7‐05, Chapter 13

2007 CBC‐ family of codes

NEHRP IBC 2006 ASCE 7‐5



familiar



4‐ Very Familiar


Responses Mean


0 0 5 12 3 20 3.90

2


0 4 7 8 1 20 3.30

3


6 8 3 2 0 19 2.05

4 ASCE 41‐06 9 4 6 0 0 19 1.84

5 NFPA 6 9 3 1 0 19 1.95




Buildings)

ASCE 41‐06

NFPA

Mean 3.90 3.30 2.05 1.84 1.95

Variance 0.41 0.75 0.94 0.81 0.72

Standard Deviation

0.64 0.86 0.97 0.90 0.85

Total Responses

20 20 19 19 19


13. When constructing a building in, are you required to abide by:


Responses Mean



17 0 1 18 1.11


4 ASCE 41‐06 2 4 8 14 2.43

5 NFPA 5 5 3 13 1.85


Text Response

can't be built

No permit would be issued for a new or remodeled structure that didn't meet the minimum design loads

They do not get a building permit, if build without permit then double fee’s if not comply then Admin hearing and lien may be placed on the title.

Don't Know

None

The design will not be approved for building permit.

don't know

don’t know

Revocation of permit, possibly destruction of construction completed if not complying.

don't know

Don't Know

Don't Know

No permit would be issued

Don't Know

Fines a code enforcement actions



Text Response

can't get a permit to build the building

See above answer re: ASCE 7‐05

see previous

It depends on the violation

Investigation Fees and increased construction and evaluation costs

Permit is not issued until compliance is shown through drawings, details and calculations

The design will not be approved for a building permit.

don’t know

Increased Liability

revocation of permit, potentially destruction of construction if not compliant and unsafe

don't know

Don't know

Don't Know

Don't Know

Fines and code enforcement action


# Answer %

1 Yes 29%

2 No 71%

Total 100%



Text Response


FEMA 74‐‐Reducing Risks of Nonstructural Earthquake Damage FEMA 450‐‐NEHRP Recommended Provisions for Seismic Regulations FEMA 460‐‐Storage Racks

Design standard for dropped ceiling restraints. (CISCA I believe)

FEMA pre‐standards such as350, 351, 368, 369

NEHRP, IBC, ASCE, FEMA

18. How important do you think earthquake safety standards for nonstructural items; are to other professionals in the building community?

# Answer %


2 2 17%

3 3 6%


5 5 11%

6 6 33%


Total 100%



# Answer %


2 2 0%

3 3 6%


5 5 6%

6 6 28%


Total 100%



# Answer %


2 2 0%

3 3 6%


5 5 6%

6 6 28%


Total 100%

21. In your geographic area, how important is the installation of seismic anchorage and the bracing of building components such as electrical transformers and electrical switchgear, and mechanical equipment, such as boilers, etc?

# Answer %


2 2 0%

3 3 6%


5 5 11%

6 6 28%


Total 100%



# Answer %


2 2 6%

3 3 12%


5 5 6%

6 6 24%


Total 100%


# Answer %


2 2 6%

3 3 6%


5 5 6%

6 6 33%


Total 100%



# Answer %






Total 100%


# Answer %






Total 100%



# Answer %

1 Major facility downtime definitely would not happen

0%





Total 100%


# Answer Response %


14 88%


2 13%

Total 16 100%



# Answer %

1 Architect 83%










56%








# Answer %

x1 Architect 47%










0%






Total 100%


30. In your opinion, who have you found to be the most informed about nonstructural seismic safety design standards? (Select one)

# Answer %

1 Architect 12%


3 Civil engineer 6%








0%






Total 100%


31. In your opinion, who have you found to be the least informed about nonstructural seismic safety design standards? (Select one)

# Answer %

1 Architect 35%


3 Civil engineer 6%








0%






Total 100%


32. Who do you believe is responsible for compliance with nonstructural seismic safety design standards? (With a '1' representing the party most responsible.)


1 Architect 7 4 3 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 15


3 Civil engineer 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 5


0 3 6 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 13




1 1 1 4 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 11


2 0 0 0 0 0 1 3 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 8



1 0 1 0 0 2 0 0 1 0 2 0 0 0 0 7



1 1 0 0 3 2 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 10


1 1 0 1 3 0 1 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 10


2 0 0 0 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 7

15 Other (please specify)

1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1

Total 25 18 21 13 11 10 9 8 6 5 4 4 3 1 0



# Answer %

1 Architect 41%


3 Civil engineer 6%








0%






Total 100%



# Answer %





Total 100%




Total 64.88 18.50



# Answer %


6%


75%



0%


13%



6%


44%



6%




13%


31%


0%




37. Please rank five (5) from the list below in order of causal forces by dragging and dropping them to their respective order:

# Answer Responses



10




2









x14 It occurred for the work my firm was involved in, but not for others in the same facility

0



# Answer %



0%


7%


20%



27%




7%


13%


13%


53%


40%


0%


40%


27%




13%


27%



0%





39. Please rank order the reasons why you think noncompliance occurs. Include your own reasons in the ordering if you add any to the list. If there are more than five reasons in the list, rank only the top five. 1 = Most important

# Answer Responses



0


1











5





x18 Penalties for noncompliance aren't severe enough to make compliance a high priority.

2




0





# Answer %

1 Yes 8%

2 No 92%

Total 100%


# Answer %

1 Very common 8%

2 Occasional 62%

3 Rare 31%

Total 100%


42. In cases where nonstructural items are not adequately anchored and braced for earthquake loads, what are the primary factors that could lead to good design and construction practices? (Please check as many as applicable.

# Answer %


38%


54%


92%


46%


62%


31%





38%

9


23%


31%


31%


62%

13


23%



# Answer %




Total 100%



# Answer %

1 Architect 43%


3 Civil engineer 0%








0%





15 Owner 0%


Total 100%



# Answer %




Total 100%


Text Response

Better training and funding for education of Building Officials and staff

Making clear the requirements, and whether special inspection of these items is mandatory


Building Inspector training

educate regulators such as plans examiners and building inspectors

49. Rank the effectiveness of reduced financial constraints associated with compliance.

# Answer %




Total 100%


# Answer %





Total 100%


# Answer %




Total 100%


# Answer %

1 Yes 67%


2 No 33%

Total 100%


# Answer Response %

1 High probability of increasing compliance

6 46%

2 Medium probability of increasing compliance

6 46%

3 Low probability of increasing compliance

1 8%

Total 13 100%

Statistic Value

Mean 1.62

Variance 0.42


Total Responses 13


# Answer %




Total 100%


55. Who needs to be certified so that compliance will ensured?

# Answer %

1 Architect 100%


3 Civil engineer 0%








50%







# Answer %




Total 100%



# Answer %




Total 100%


# Answer %





Total 100%


# Answer %




Total 100%

60. You stated that an increase in the availability of qualified specialty contractors to ensure compliance would have a positive effect. Are well‐qualified specialty contractors available?

# Answer %

1 Yes 50%

2 No 50%

Total 100%


# Answer %




Total 100%



# Answer %




Total 100%


# Answer %




Total 100%

64. Rank the importance design process issues in achieving compliance.

# Answer %




Total 100%



Text Response

Certify the design architect, engineer and the installation contractor.

more training for design engineers

Education Outreach!

Education as to the requirements

Simplifying the standards to a one size fits all

Consolidate applicable technical standards and have typical details to import on to the plans.

Ease of use, low cast to install, quick to be done.

Educate design professionals, regulators (plans examiners and inspectors), equipment suppliers, and general contractors of the specific requirements; have code requirements that are required to be stated on the plans

Appendix D, Architect Responses Page D‐1


Appendix D Architects Electronic Survey Results 1.0 Introduction

This appendix provides a summary of data gathered from architects, using the on line Qualtrics survey tool. Questions are listed in the order that they appeared to respondents.


# Answer Response %



4 Architect 15 100%







0 0%

13 Supplier or installer of specialty seismic 0 0%


bracing devices




0 0%


Total 15 100%

4. How many years have you been employed in your profession?


1 Years 24.89 11.29

Total 24.89 11.29


# Answer %

1 California 62%

2 Utah 23%

3 Washington 15%


Total 100%


# Answer Response %

1 California 8 62%

2 Utah and Washington 3 23%

3 Washington 2 15%

Total 13 100%



# Answer Response %




4 Healthcare 2 15%

5 Utilities 0 0%




9 Industrial 5 38%






1 Years 26.86 8.18

Total 26.86 8.18


# Answer Response %

1 Yes 12 92%

2 No 1 8%

Total 13 100%


10. Are you familiar with any codes, design guidelines, or standards that govern the installation of nonstructural and equipment seismic restraints in buildings

# Answer %

1 Yes 85%

2 No 15%

Total 100%


#1 #2 #3 #4 #5

IBC

calif bldg code

UBC Title 24 California State Building code

2006 IBC 2006 IRC

Ceiling lateral support

MEP equip support

Curtain wall floor drift accommodation

Stair floor drift accommodation

Building differential movement expansion joints



CBC 2007 IBC 2006 CBC 2001 UBC 1997 UBC earlier

UBC Former San Francisco Building Code


IBC ASCE 7

restraint of water heater in residential work

lay in ceiling grid restraint

tall furniture restraint

IBC UBC

UBC/Title 24 UMC




familiar



4‐ Very Familiar


Responses Mean


0 4 0 5 2 11 3.45

2


7 0 1 2 1 11 2.09

3


6 2 3 0 0 11 1.73

4 ASCE 41‐06 10 0 0 0 0 10 1.00

5 NFPA 7 3 0 0 0 10 1.30




Buildings)

ASCE 41‐06

NFPA

Mean 3.45 2.09 1.73 1.00 1.30

Variance 1.47 2.49 0.82 0.00 0.23

Standard Deviation

1.21 1.58 0.90 0.00 0.48

Total Responses

11 11 11 10 10


13. When constructing a building in, are you required to abide by:


Responses Mean



4 0 6 10 2.20


4 ASCE 41‐06 0 0 10 10 3.00

5 NFPA 3 0 7 10 2.40




Buildings)

ASCE 41‐06

NFPA

Mean 1.36 2.20 2.40 3.00 2.40

Variance 0.45 1.07 0.93 0.00 0.93

Standard Deviation

0.67 1.03 0.97 0.00 0.97

Total Responses

11 10 10 10 10

14. What are the penalties for noncompliance with The Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and Other Structures (ASCE 7‐05)? (Please respond in the box below.

Text Response


don't know

Don’t Know

Don't know


Don't Know



Text Response


Don’t know

Loss of license, law suits, no building permit...

You cannot get a permit.

don't know


Don't Know

censure, loss of license, fines, jail

For my work, no approvals, no occupancy.


# Answer %

1 Yes 40%

2 No 60%

Total 100%


Text Response

CBC

Ceiling and Interior Systems Construction Association (CISCA)

Henry Lagorio's book FEMA 154/July 1988

common sense


18. How important do you think earthquake safety standards for nonstructural items are to other professionals in the building community?

# Answer %


2 2 0%

3 3 0%


5 5 25%

6 6 38%


Total 100%



# Answer %

1 Less than high school 0%

2 High school graduate or equivalent 0%


0%

4 Some college 15%


38%


46%

Total 100%


# Answer %


2 2 0%

3 3 0%


5 5 0%

6 6 63%


Total 100%



# Answer %


2 2 0%

3 3 0%


5 5 0%

6 6 38%


Total 100%

22. In your geographic area, how important is the installation of seismic anchorage and the bracing of building components such as electrical transformers and electrical switchgear, and mechanical equipment

# Answer %


2 2 0%

3 3 0%


5 5 14%

6 6 43%


Total 100%



# Answer %


2 2 0%

3 3 0%


5 5 0%

6 6 25%


Total 100%


# Answer %


2 2 0%

3 3 0%


5 5 13%

6 6 38%


Total 100%



# Answer %






Total 100%


# Answer %






Total 100%



# Answer %






Total 100%


# Answer %

1 Architect 100%










63%








# Answer %

x1 Architect 63%










0%






Total 100%



# Answer %

1 Architect 38%


3 Civil engineer 0%








13%






Total 100%



# Answer %

1 Architect 0%










0%






Total 100%


33. Who do you believe is responsible for compliance with nonstructural seismic safety design standards? [Please rank order your responses with a '1' representing the party most responsible.]


1 Architect 4 0 1 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 8


3 Civil engineer 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 2





0 3 0 0 0 1 2 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 7


0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 4



0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 3



0 2 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 7


0 0 0 2 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 4


0 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 4


0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Total 8 9 10 9 8 7 7 5 6 4 4 3 0 0 0



# Answer %

1 Architect 25%


3 Civil engineer 0%








0%






Total 100%



# Answer %





Total 100%



# Answer %


38%


75%



25%


38%



25%


50%


63%




38%


13%


0%






# Answer Responses



4




3













Total



# Answer %



0%


0%


14%



14%




14%


14%


0%


29%


29%



29%


14%



14%


29%




0%





# Answer %

1 Yes 38%

2 No 63%

Total 100%


# Answer %

1 Very common 14%

2 Occasional 57%

3 Rare 29%

Total 100%


42. In cases where nonstructural items are not adequately anchored and braced for earthquake loads, what are the primary factors that could lead to good design and construction practices? (Please check as many as applicable

# Answer %


14%


43%


100%


71%


100%


14%


0%

8 Better internal quality control by design professionals could lead to good design and

57%


construction practices.

9


0%


14%


43%


14%

13


0%


# Answer %




Total 100%


# Answer Response %

1 High probability of increasing compliance 6 75%


2 25%

3 Low probability of increasing compliance 0 0%



Text Response

EDUCATION OF PROFESSION AND BUILDING OFFICIALS

properly educate plan reviewers and inspectors about standards

Building Inspectors Enforcement

non approval, no occupancy.


# Answer %




Total 100%


Text Response

time involved in detail design and labor and materials for installation

Reduction of Insurance Premiums

49. Rank the effectiveness of Creating incentives for compliance.

# Answer %




Total 100%


50. Do you know of any existing incentive programs?

# Answer %

1 Yes 0%

2 No 100%

Total 100%


# Answer Response %



3 38%


Total 8 100%

52. Is the existing plan approval process adaptable?

# Answer %

1 Yes 75%

2 No 25%

Total 100%


# Answer %




Total 100%



# Answer %




Total 100%


# Answer %




Total 100%


# Answer %




Total 100%


# Answer %



25%


Total 100%


59. Rank the effectiveness of increasing the availability of qualified specialty contractors to ensure compliance. # Answer %




Total 100%

60. Rank the effectiveness of requiring equipment suppliers to design and install seismic anchorage and bracing systems. # Answer %



63%


Total 100%


# Answer %




Total 100%


# Answer %






# Answer %




Total 100%


Text Response

Educating building owners of the potential liability from death or injury from non‐conforming seismic bracing.

Inspections by Building Inspectors, Contractors, Architects, Specialty Installers, etc. of detailed anchorage requirements.

Clarify and simplify confusing code provisions, notably ASCE 7 standards

litigation

educate the folks building the building

Appendix E, Contractor Responses Page E‐1


Appendix E Contractors Electronic Survey Results

1.0 Introduction

This appendix provides a summary of data gathered from contractors, using the on line Qualtrics survey tool. Questions are listed in the order that they appeared to respondents.


# Answer Response %



4 Architect 0 0%







0 0%


0 0%





0 0%

Total 9 100%

3. Which of the following describes your role in that position?

# Answer Response %

1 Project Manager 4 44%

2 Project Estimator 0 0%

4 Neither 0 0%

3 Other (Please Specify) 5 56%

Total 9 100%



1 Years 19.57 11.00

Total 19.57 11.00


# Answer Response %

1 California 5 56%

2 Utah 0 0%

3 Washington 2 22%


Total 9 100%



# Answer Response %

1 California 4 67%


3 Washington 2 33%

Total 6 100%


# Answer Response %




0 0%



5 56%


2 22%

Total 9 100%




Business MBA International Business

BS‐Bldg. Const. Mgmt. MS Civil

German Culture

Construction Management

BS Constr. Management



# Answer Response %




4 Healthcare 2 22%

5 Utilities 2 22%




9 Industrial 3 33%






1 Years 22.56 12.48

Total 22.56 12.48


# Answer Response %

1 Yes 8 89%

2 No 1 11%

Total 9 100%



# Answer Response %

1 Yes 2 22%

2 No 7 78%

Total 9 100%



familiar



4‐ Very Familiar


Responses Mean


1 2 3 2 0 8 2.75

2


2 4 1 0 0 7 1.86

3


2 3 2 1 0 8 2.25

4 ASCE 41‐06 5 3 0 0 0 8 1.38

5 NFPA 4 4 0 0 0 8 1.50





Buildings)

ASCE 41‐06

NFPA

Mean 2.75 1.86 2.25 1.38 1.50

Variance 1.07 0.48 1.07 0.27 0.29

Standard Deviation

1.04 0.69 1.04 0.52 0.53

Total Responses

8 7 8 8 8

13. When constructing a building are you required to abide by:


Responses Mean



2 0 3 5 2.20


4 ASCE 41‐06 1 0 4 5 2.60

5 NFPA 2 0 3 5 2.20




Buildings)

ASCE 41‐06

NFPA

Mean 1.38 2.20 2.20 2.60 2.20

Variance 0.55 1.20 1.20 0.80 1.20

Standard Deviation

0.74 1.10 1.10 0.89 1.10

Total Responses

8 5 5 5 5


14. What are the penalties for noncompliance with The Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and Other Structures (ASCE 7‐05)? (Please respond in the box below. If you do not know what the penalties are, then write 'don’t know’.

Text Response



Don't Know


Text Response

Correct work or have project stopped


Loss of contractor's license ‐ possible fines


No permit given, redesign needed


# Answer Response %

1 Yes 0 0%

2 No 6 100%

Total 6 100%



# Answer %


2 2 0%

3 3 0%


5 5 33%

6 6 17%



# Answer %


2 2 0%

3 3 0%


5 5 14%

6 6 14%


Total 100%



# Answer %


2 2 0%

3 3 0%


5 5 0%

6 6 14%


Total 100%

20. In your geographic area, how important is the installation of seismic anchorage and the bracing of building components such as electrical transformers and electrical switchgear, and mechanical equipment?

# Answer %


2 2 0%

3 3 0%


5 5 14%

6 6 14%


Total 100%



# Answer %


2 2 0%

3 3 0%


5 5 29%

6 6 14%


Total 100%


# Answer %


2 2 0%

3 3 0%


5 5 17%

6 6 0%


Total 100%



# Answer %






Total 100%


# Answer %






Total 100%



# Answer %






Total 100%


# Answer %


86%

2 Structural collapse during a moderate earthquake 14%

Total 100%



# Answer %

1 Architect 71%










29%







# Answer %

x1 Architect 29%










0%







# Answer %

1 Architect 14%


3 Civil engineer 0%








0%






Total 100%



# Answer %

1 Architect 29%


3 Civil engineer 0%








0%






Total 100%


31. Who do you believe is responsible for compliance with nonstructural seismic safety design standards? [Please rank order your responses with a '1' representing the party most responsible, etc.]


1 Architect 2 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 6


3 Civil engineer 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 2




7 Building subcontractor 0 0 1 0 0 2 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4


0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 3



1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 4


12 Building plan reviewer 0 2 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 5


0 0 0 0 2 0 0 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 5


0 1 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4

15 Other (please specify) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Total 7 9 6 7 6 4 4 5 3 3 2 2 2 1 0


32. In your opinion, who has ultimate responsibility to see that buildings are compliant with nonstructural seismic safety deign standards? (Select one)

# Answer %

1 Architect 14%


3 Civil engineer 0%








0%






Total 100%



# Answer %





Total 100%




Total 36.40 30.95


35. In cases where you believe nonstructural items in buildings and facilities have been designed and constructed with good seismic anchorage and bracing measures, why has this occurred?

# Answer %


57%


14%



14%


0%



14%


57%


0%





29%


0%


0%






# Answer Response %

1 I have never seen compliance 0 0%


1 17%


2 33%


1 17%


1 17%


2 33%

7 The standards are poorly designed. 1 17%


1 17%


0 0%


0 0%


0 0%


4 67%

13


2 33%


0 0%


1 17%



0 0%

17 Compliance just falls through the cracks. 0 0%


1 17%


1 17%

20 No one is qualified to certify compliance. 0 0%


1 17%





# Answer %

1 Yes 43%

2 No 57%

Total 100%


# Answer %

1 Very common 43%

2 Occasional 29%

3 Rare 29%

Total 100%


39. In cases where nonstructural items are not adequately anchored and braced for earthquake loads, what are the primary factors that could lead to good design and construction practices? Please check as many as apply.

# Answer %


50%


67%


83%


17%


67%


17%





50%

9


33%


17%


17%


33%

13


0%



40. Who is responsible for the correct seismic anchorage of equipment and the seismic bracing? (Select one)

# Answer %

1 Architect 0%


3 Civil engineer 0%








0%






Total 100%


41. Who do you think should be responsible for seismic design? (Select one)

# Answer %

1 Architect 20%


3 Civil engineer 0%








0%






Total 100%

42. Do you believe that seismic anchorage and bracing is important?

# Answer %

1 Yes 100%

2 No 0%

Total 100%


43. Do you think that others understand your equipment well enough to provide a correct seismic design?

# Answer %

1 Yes 0%

2 No 100%

Total 100%

44. Do you include a cost for seismic anchorage or bracing in your competitive bids?

# Answer %

1 Yes 60%

2 No 40%

Total 100%

45. What percentage of the project cost is associated with this work?


1 Percentage of Project Cost 2.00 0.00

Total 2.00 0.00

46. As a subcontractor, are you responsible for the correct seismic anchorage of equipment and the seismic bracing of piping, ductwork, cable tray, and so forth?

# Answer Response %

1 Yes 0 0%

2 No 0 0%

Total 0 0%


49. If typical details given in design specifications do not conform to the actual piping layout equipment configuration, or other factors, who is responsible for developing a workable design? Select one of the following.

# Answer Response %

1 Architect 0 0%





6 Specialty contractor 0 0%


Total 2 100%

Statistic Value

Mean 3.00

Variance 0.00


Total Responses 2

50. Does ASCE 7‐05 ever require equipment to be shake‐table tested?

# Answer Response %

1 Yes 0 0%

2 No 0 0%

3 Don't know 0 0%

Total 0 0%


51. Rank the effectiveness in education to increase familiarity with the standards.

# Answer %




Total 100%


# Answer %




Total 100%


# Answer %




Total 100%



# Answer %




Total 100%


# Answer %




Total 100%


# Answer %




Total 100%



# Answer %




Total 100%


# Answer %

1 Architect 33%


3 Civil engineer 0%








33%








# Answer %




Total 100%


# Answer %




Total 100%


# Answer %




Total 100%


66. Rank the importance regulatory issues in achieving compliance. # Answer %




Total 100%

67. Rank the importance design process issues in achieving compliance.

# Answer %




Total 100%


Text Response

Training ‐ certification

design requirements for permitting

building codes

providing an approved complete design with specific details that reflect the actual construction being used as part of the plans and specs

Appendix F, Mechanical/Electrical Engineer Responses Page F‐1


Appendix F Mechanical/Electrical Engineers Electronic Survey Results

1.0 Introduction

This appendix provides a summary of data gathered from mechanical and electrical engineers, using the on line Qualtrics survey tool. Questions are listed in the order that they appeared to respondents.


# Answer Response %



4 Architect 0 0%







0 0%


0 0%





0 0%


Total 6 100%



1 Years 26.25 7.54

Total 26.25 7.54


# Answer Response %

1 California 2 33%

2 Utah 0 0%

3 Washington 0 0%


Total 6 100%


# Answer Response %




0 0%



4 67%


1 17%

Total 6 100%



# Answer Response %




4 Healthcare 1 17%

5 Utilities 3 50%




9 Industrial 5 83%






1 Years 27.00 8.46

Total 27.00 8.46


# Answer Response %

1 Yes 5 83%

2 No 1 17%

Total 6 100%



# Answer Response %

1 Yes 6 100%

2 No 0 0%

Total 6 100%


#1 #2 #3 #4 #5

NY Build Code UBC IBC BOCA ASCE7‐05

IBC IMC IPC IFC Oregon Mechanical Specialty Code

NFPA 13 Uniform Plumbing Code

California Plumbing code

International building code

Uniform building code

UBC IBC State of California Title 8

NFPA 13

SMACNA SEISMIC RESTRAINT MANUAL (Guidelines for Mechanical Systems)

NC Building Code ASCE 7‐05




familiar



4‐ Very Familiar


Responses Mean


0 0 2 4 0 6 3.67

2


4 1 0 1 0 6 1.67

3


4 1 0 0 0 5 1.20

4 ASCE 41‐06 4 1 0 0 0 5 1.20

5 NFPA 0 1 0 4 1 6 3.83




Buildings)

ASCE 41‐06

NFPA

Mean 3.67 1.67 1.20 1.20 3.83

Variance 0.27 1.47 0.20 0.20 0.97

Standard Deviation

0.52 1.21 0.45 0.45 0.98

Total Responses

6 6 5 5 6


12. When constructing a building in, are you required to to abide by:


Responses Mean



2 1 3 6 2.17


4 ASCE 41‐06 0 1 4 5 2.80

5 NFPA 4 0 2 6 1.67




Buildings)

ASCE 41‐06

NFPA

Mean 1.00 2.17 2.83 2.80 1.67

Variance 0.00 0.97 0.17 0.20 1.07

Standard Deviation

0.00 0.98 0.41 0.45 1.03

Total Responses

6 6 6 5 6


Text Response

do not know

Prosecution, loss of license, no occupancy permit

I don't know

Do not get the Certificate of Occupancy

fine, or imprisonment

A change order for the contract to bring the building in compliance. I know of no fines or other penalties.



# Answer Response %

1 Yes 1 20%

2 No 4 80%

Total 5 100%


# Answer Response %


2 2 0 0%

3 3 0 0%


5 5 1 20%

6 6 1 20%


Total 5 100%


# Answer Response %


2 2 0 0%

3 3 0 0%


5 5 0 0%

6 6 2 40%


Total 5 100%



# Answer Response %


2 2 0 0%

3 3 0 0%


5 5 0 0%

6 6 1 20%


Total 5 100%

18. In your geographic area, how important is the installation of seismic anchorage and the bracing of building components such as electrical transformers and electrical switchgear, and mechanical equipment?

# Answer Response %


2 2 0 0%

3 3 0 0%


5 5 0 0%

6 6 1 20%


Total 5 100%



# Answer Response %


2 2 0 0%

3 3 0 0%


5 5 0 0%

6 6 1 20%


Total 5 100%


# Answer Response %


2 2 0 0%

3 3 0 0%


5 5 0 0%

6 6 1 20%


Total 5 100%



# Answer Response %


0 0%


0 0%




Total 5 100%


# Answer Response %


0 0%


0 0%




Total 5 100%



# Answer Response %


0 0%

2 Major facility downtime probably would not happen

0 0%

3 Major facility downtime may or may not happen

0 0%

4 Major facility downtime probably would happen

2 40%

5 Major facility downtime definitely would happen

3 60%

Total 5 100%


# Answer Response %


5 100%


0 0%

Total 5 100%



# Answer Response %

1 Architect 4 80%










4 80%








# Answer Response %

x1 Architect 0 0%










0 0%





x15 Other (please specify) 0 0%

Total 5 100%



# Answer Response %

1 Architect 0 0%










1 20%






Total 5 100%



# Answer Response %

1 Architect 2 40%










0 0%






Total 5 100%


29. Who do you believe is responsible for compliance with nonstructural seismic safety design standards? [Please rank order your responses with a '1' representing the party most responsible for compliance, a '2' representing...


1 Architect 1 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 5


3 Civil engineer 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 3





1 0 0 0 0 2 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5


0 1 0 0 1 0 2 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 5



1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 2 0 0 0 0 5



0 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 4


0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 5


0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 5


1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1

Total 12 8 6 3 4 5 4 3 5 4 4 3 2 2 0



# Answer Response %

1 Architect 0 0%










0 0%






Total 5 100%


# Answer Response %

1 1‐ never complied with 0 0%

2 2‐ sometimes complied with 0 0%

3 3‐ usually complied with 3 60%

4 4‐ always complied with 2 40%

Total 5 100%



# Answer Response %


0 0%


2 40%


3 60%


1 20%


0 0%



0 0%


1 20%


2 40%




4 80%


3 60%


0 0%


0 0%






# Answer Responses



1




0













Total



# Answer Response %



0 0%


0 0%


0 0%


1 25%


2 50%



1 25%


0 0%


0 0%


0 0%


3 75%

13


1 25%


0 0%


2 50%


1 25%




1 25%


0 0%



1 25%





36. Please rank order the reasons why you think noncompliance occurs. Include your own reasons in the ordering if you add any to the list. If there are more than five reasons in the list, rank only the top five.1 ‐ Most important

# Answer Responses



0


0











1









1




Total



# Answer Response %

1 Yes 3 60%

2 No 2 40%

Total 5 100%


# Answer Response %

1 Very common 1 20%

2 Occasional 2 40%

3 Rare 2 40%

Total 5 100%

39. In cases where nonstructural items are not adequately anchored and braced for earthquake loads, what are the primary factors that could lead to good design and construction practices? (Please check as many as apply.)

# Answer Response %

1

New technical provisions in the building codes, i.e. improvement in the technical requirements, could lead to good design and construction practices.

4 80%


3 60%


5 100%



3 60%


5 100%


2 40%

7


2 40%


4 80%

9


3 60%


4 80%


2 40%

12


4 80%

13


4 80%




# Answer Responses


3


2


4



4


2


2


3


3


3


2


4


4


Total


41. Do you have a line item in your bid process for nonstructural seismic bracing and anchorage?

# Answer Response %

1 Yes 1 33%

2 No 2 67%

Total 3 100%

42. Do your mechanical/electrical/specialty subcontractors currently address nonstructural seismic requirements?

# Answer Response %

1 Yes 3 100%

2 No 0 0%

Total 3 100%

43. How do your mechanical/electrical/specialty subcontractors currently address nonstructural seismic requirements?

Text Response

Subcontract to a structural engineer

Tie downs and lateral braces

44. What percentage of an MEP budget is necessary to properly address nonstructural seismic requirements?


1 % 7.50 3.54

Total 7.50 3.54


45. How important is nonstructural seismic bracing and equipment anchorage? [1 = not at all important, 10 = extremely important]

# Answer Response %

1 1 0 0%

2 2 0 0%

3 3 0 0%

4 4 0 0%

5 5 0 0%

6 6 0 0%

7 7 0 0%

8 8 1 33%

9 9 1 33%

10 10 1 33%

Total 3 100%

46. Which engineering design discipline or disciplines should be primarily responsible for nonstructural seismic safety design? Select all that apply:

# Answer Response %

1 Structural engineering 3 100%

2 Civil Engineering 1 33%

3 Mechanical Engineering 3 100%

4 Electrical Engineering 3 100%


47. For the ten most recent projects you completed, how many had seismic bracing and equipment anchorage in conformance with current codes?

# Answer Response %

1 1 0 0%

2 2 0 0%

3 3 0 0%

4 4 0 0%

5 5 0 0%

6 6 0 0%

7 7 0 0%

8 8 0 0%

9 9 0 0%

10 10 3 100%

Total 3 100%

48. How do you know your assessment (the number that conformed to codes) is correct?

Text Response

Best of knowledge

required as a base of design

Because I checked the seismic requirements

49. Do you believe that some buildings do not require seismic design of nonstructural items?

# Answer Response %

1 Yes 2 67%

2 No 1 33%

Total 3 100%


51. Do you believe that typical details and/or performance specifications are an adequate way of accomplishing seismic design for nonstructural items?

# Answer Response %

1 Yes 1 50%

2 No 1 50%

Total 2 100%

52. If typical details given in design specifications do not conform to the actual piping layout equipment configuration, or other factors, who is responsible for developing a workable design? [Select one of the following...

# Answer Response %

1 Architect 0 0%





6 Specialty contractor 1 50%


Total 2 100%


53. How qualified are equipment contractors for constructing nonstructural seismic bracing and anchorage? [1 = not at all qualified, extremely well qualified = 7]

# Answer Response %

1 1 0 0%

2 2 1 50%

3 3 0 0%

4 4 0 0%

5 5 1 50%

6 6 0 0%

7 7 0 0%

Total 2 100%

54. When you provide project budget estimates, do you typically include a line item for nonstructural bracing and anchorage?

# Answer Response %

1 Yes 1 50%

2 No 1 50%

Total 2 100%

55. Who do you think should be responsible for seismic design?

Text Response

Structural engineer, or other specialty with seismic design

All design professionals, backup up by knowledgeable code officials.



Text Response

Provide a code which is technically correct but easier to read and enforce. Provide a "cookbook" approach for standard items such as piping, ductwork, equipment, transformers, etc. which can be implemented and enforced easily. Provide alternate guidelines for special cases or as an incentive for less costly alternatives.

58. In your opinion, who have you found to be the least informed about nonstructural seismic safety design standards.

# Answer Response %

1 Architect 0 0%










0 0%


12 Building Plan Reviewer 0 0%



Total 2 100%



# Answer Response %



0 0%


Total 5 100%


# Answer Response %

1 Architect 0 0%










0 0%





15 Owner 1 20%


Total 5 100%



# Answer Response %



0 0%


Total 5 100%

62. How could enforcement of the standards be enhanced?

Text Response

Make sure all building inspectors are educated on this standard

Specified requirements as part of the project construction documents

The standards to be adopted by local codes

Provide a simpler code


# Answer Response %



2 40%


Total 5 100%


64. What financial constraints make compliance difficult?

Text Response

Giving a cost incentive for permitting or by insurance underwriters

Budget saving or profit pursuit could be the problem of compliance.

The cost of design and installation, when not needed.


Text Response

If it is used more, then manufacturers could see higher volume and reduce upfront costs

Provide a simpler code, with reasonable basic anchoring hardware.


# Answer Response %



0 0%


Total 5 100%

67. Do you know of any existing incentive programs?

# Answer Response %

1 Yes 0 0%

2 No 4 100%

Total 4 100%



# Answer Response %



2 40%


Total 5 100%


# Answer Response %



1 20%


Total 5 100%


# Answer Response %



2 40%


Total 5 100%



# Answer Response %

1 Architect 0 0%










1 50%





Text Response

familiarity with all types of systems

pass certification exam, obtain training certificate for related topics


# Answer Response %



2 40%


Total 5 100%



# Answer Response %



1 20%


Total 5 100%


# Answer Response %



3 60%


Total 5 100%

77. You mentioned that providing detailed design standards to assist in the process of complying. What, if any, detailed design standards do you know of

Text Response

The current design standards are too generic, requiring significant design effort for small items. Provide simpler code.



# Answer Response %



1 20%


Total 5 100%


# Answer Response %



1 20%


Total 5 100%


# Answer Response %



2 40%


Total 5 100%



# Answer Response %



3 60%


Total 5 100%


# Answer Response %



2 40%


Total 5 100%


Text Response

Have a specific chapter in the building code that addresses it.

Safety of personnel during an earthquake and Life Safety equipment would still function

Enforcement in the plan check and inspection stages.

Provide a simpler "cookbook" type code. The code needs to be easily read and understood by design professionals, contractors, and code officials.


Appendix G, Civil Engineers Page G‐1

Appendix G Civil Engineers Electronic Survey Results 1.0 Introduction

This appendix provides a summary of data gathered from civil engineers, using the on line Qualtrics survey tool. Questions are listed in the order that they appeared to respondents.


# Answer Response %



4 Architect 0 0%







0 0%


0 0%




0 0%


Total 13 100%





1 Years 26.89 11.61

Total 26.89 11.61


# Answer Response %

1 California 6 50%

2 Utah 1 8%

3 Washington 1 8%


Total 12 100%


# Answer Response %

1 California 6 75%


3 Washington 1 13%

Total 8 100%


# Answer Response %




0 0%

4 Some college 0 0%


5 42%




7 58%

Total 12 100%




BS in Architectural Engineer Civil‐Structural

Water/wastewater geotechnical

BS CE master of public policy

Civil Engineering MS Civil Engineering

Civil Engr.


# Answer Response %




4 Healthcare 1 9%

5 Utilities 8 73%




9 Industrial 4 36%








1 Years 26.40 11.31

Total 26.40 11.31


# Answer Response %

1 Yes 10 83%

2 No 2 17%

Total 12 100%


# Answer Response %

1 Yes 9 75%

2 No 3 25%

Total 12 100%




#1 #2 #3 #4 #5

IBC Mass Building Code

IBC

2001 CBC (1997 UBC) 2007 CBC (2006 IBC & ASCE 7‐05)

TCLEE water wastewater guidelines

UBC

Seattle Building Code International Building Code ASCE 7‐05

AWWA D100‐05

UBC 97 IBC 2001 IBC 2003

CBC 2007 ACI 318 ASCE 7‐05

LA CITY ZONING CODE

AISC 341, 358

UBC UMC UPC UFC

EOTA ‐ ETAG FEMA



familiar



4‐ Very Familiar


Responses Mean


1 2 3 4 1 11 3.18

2


4 1 1 3 1 10 2.60

3


3 2 3 2 1 11 2.64

4 ASCE 41‐06 6 2 0 1 2 11 2.18

5 NFPA 4 4 3 0 0 11 1.91






Buildings)

ASCE 41‐06

NFPA

Mean 3.18 2.60 2.64 2.18 1.91

Variance 1.36 2.49 1.85 2.76 0.69

Standard Deviation

1.17 1.58 1.36 1.66 0.83

Total Responses

11 10 11 11 11

13. When constructing a building in , are you required to abide by:


Responses Mean



6 1 4 11 1.82


4 ASCE 41‐06 3 1 5 9 2.22

5 NFPA 3 0 4 7 2.14




Buildings)

ASCE 41‐06

NFPA

Mean 1.55 1.82 1.89 2.22 2.14

Variance 0.87 0.96 0.86 0.94 1.14

Standard Deviation

0.93 0.98 0.93 0.97 1.07

Total Responses

11 11 9 9 7




Text Response

Loss of License

Building permit will not be issued

no building permit, possible loss of engineering license, fines,

Don't know.

LOSS OF LIFE

Depends upon local jurisdiction

Not Specified


# Answer Response %

1 Yes 4 36%

2 No 7 64%

Total 11 100%


Text Response

SMACMA, NFPA, AWWA

AWWA, Minimizing Earthquake Damage, A Guide For Water Utilities. (No Date)

EOTA




# Answer Response %


2 2 0 0%

3 3 2 22%


5 5 2 22%

6 6 3 33%


Total 9 100%




# Answer Response %


2 2 0 0%

3 3 1 11%


5 5 2 22%

6 6 4 44%


Total 9 100%


# Answer Response %


2 2 0 0%

3 3 1 11%


5 5 1 11%

6 6 4 44%


Total 9 100%



20. In your geographic area, how important is the installation of seismic anchorage and the bracing of building components such as electrical transformers and electrical switchgear, and mechanical equipment, such as boilers.

# Answer Response %


2 2 0 0%

3 3 1 11%


5 5 2 22%

6 6 5 56%


Total 9 100%


# Answer Response %


2 2 0 0%

3 3 1 13%


5 5 4 50%

6 6 1 13%


Total 8 100%




# Answer Response %


2 2 0 0%

3 3 0 0%


5 5 0 0%

6 6 6 67%


Total 9 100%


# Answer Response %


0 0%


0 0%




Total 9 100%




# Answer Response %


0 0%


0 0%




Total 9 100%


# Answer Response %


0 0%

2 Major facility downtime probably would not happen

0 0%

3 Major facility downtime may or may not happen

0 0%

4 Major facility downtime probably would happen

7 78%

5 Major facility downtime definitely would happen

2 22%

Total 9 100%




# Answer Response %


8 89%


1 11%

Total 9 100%


# Answer Response %

1 Architect 7 78%










5 56%





15 Other 1 11%




# Answer Response %

x1 Architect 0 0%










0 0%





x15 Other 0 0%

Total 8 100%




# Answer Response %

1 Architect 0 0%










1 13%






Total 8 100%




# Answer Response %

1 Architect 3 38%










0 0%






Total 8 100%



31. Who do you believe is responsible for compliance with nonstructural seismic safety design standards? Please rank order your responses [with a '1' representing the party most responsible for compliance.]


1 Architect 1 1 1 0 2 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7


3 Civil engineer 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3




7 Building subcontractor 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 3


1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 3



0 0 1 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4


12 Building plan reviewer 0 0 1 0 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 6


0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 4


0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 4

15 Other (please specify) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Total 8 9 6 6 6 6 6 4 3 3 3 2 2 1 0




# Answer Response %

1 Architect 0 0%










0 0%






Total 8 100%




# Answer Response %

1 1‐ never complied with 0 0%

2 2‐ sometimes complied with 4 50%

3 3‐ usually complied with 4 50%

4 4‐ always complied with 0 0%

Total 8 100%




# Answer Response %


5 63%


3 38%


4 50%


1 13%


1 13%



0 0%


2 25%


0 0%



2 25%


0 0%


2 25%


0 0%





# Answer Responses



3




1













Total




# Answer Response %



2 25%


1 13%


0 0%


2 25%


5 63%



2 25%


3 38%


0 0%


1 13%


2 25%

13


1 13%


0 0%


4 50%

16 Everyone passes the buck to someone 2 25%



else, so compliance doesn't occur.



2 25%


1 13%



2 25%






38. Please rank order the reasons why you think noncompliance occurs. Include your own reasons in the ordering if you add any to the list. If there are more than five reasons in the list, rank only the top five. 1 = Most important.

# Answer Responses



2


0











1









2






# Answer Response %

1 Yes 3 38%

2 No 5 63%

Total 8 100%


# Answer Response %

1 Very common 3 43%

2 Occasional 4 57%

3 Rare 0 0%

Total 7 100%



41. In cases where nonstructural items are not adequately anchored and braced for earthquake loads, what are the primary factors that could lead to good design and construction practices? (Please check as many as applicable

# Answer Response %

1

New technical provisions in the building codes, i.e. improvement in the technical requirements, could lead to good design and construction practices.

5 63%


5 63%


7 88%


6 75%


6 75%


2 25%

7


1 13%


3 38%

9


1 13%


1 13%




3 38%

12


4 50%

13


2 25%





# Answer Responses


2


2


4



4


2


1


1


1


1


3


2


2


Total



The creation of a new system, with

specific professional licensing

requirements for this type of work, could lead to

good design and construction practices.

Fairer enforcement of

standards across all

projects could lead to good design and construction practices.

Financial incentives, such as reduced insurance costs, could lead to good design and construction practices.

Better public education of

hazards posed by nonstructural items in an earthquake could lead to

good design and construction practices.

Punishment of design

professionals and contractors or

others associated with non‐compliant buildings or

facilities could lead to good design and construction practices.


8.00 5.00 6.33 4.00 4.50 0.00

0.00 0.00 2.33 0.00 4.50 0.00

0.00 0.00 1.53 0.00 2.12 0.00

1 1 3 2 2


# Answer Response %



3 38%


Total 8 100%




# Answer Response %

1 Architect 0 0%










0 0%





15 Owner 0 0%


Total 5 100%

45. Rank the effectiveness of enhanced enforcement of the current standards.

# Answer Response %



3 43%


Total 7 100%




# Answer Response %



6 75%


Total 8 100%

47. Rank the effectiveness of creating incentives for compliance. # Answer Response %



7 88%


Total 8 100%

48. Rank the effectiveness of assessing penalties for non‐compliance. # Answer Response %



4 50%


Total 8 100%


# Answer Response %

1 Yes 3 100%

2 No 0 0%




# Answer Response %



4 50%


Total 8 100%

52. Rank the effectiveness of creating a certification for individuals responsible for ensuring compliance.

# Answer Response %



3 38%


Total 8 100%




# Answer Response %

1 Architect 1 33%










1 33%







# Answer Response %



5 63%


Total 8 100%



55. You stated that by creating earthquake insurance incentives to stimulate compliance. How might such earthquake insurance incentives be structured?

Text Response

discounts

Importance factor of the facility.

lower premiums; rebates


# Answer Response %



7 100%



# Answer Response %



6 75%


Total 8 100%


# Answer Response %



7 88%


Total 8 100%




# Answer Response %



5 63%


Total 8 100%


# Answer Response %



4 50%


Total 8 100%


# Answer Response %



5 63%


Total 8 100%




# Answer Response %



6 75%


Total 8 100%


Text Response

No recommendation

Don't issue permits until compliance occurs

major earthquake with significant nonstructural damage and then owner and public outcry

Education by seminars and workshops.

education of designers, owners, inspectors, insurance agents, and the general public

training


Appendix H Facility Manager Responses Page H‐1

Appendix H: Facility Manager’s Electronic Survey Responses

1.0 Introduction

This appendix provides a summary of data gathered from all respondent groups, using the on line Qualtrics survey tool. Questions are listed in the order that they appeared to respondents.


# Answer Response %



4 Architect 0 0%







0 0%


0 0%




0 0%


Total 9 100%



3. What is the primary state in which you do most of your business? # Answer %

1 California 0%

2 Utah 29%

3 Washington 29%


Total 100%

4. What is the highest level of education you have achieved? # Answer Response %




2 29%



0 0%


2 29%

Total 7 100%

5. Please identify the types of structures or facilities with which you have experience. Check one or more categories as is applicable. # Answer Response %




4 Healthcare 3 43%

5 Utilities 0 0%




9 Industrial 2 29%






# Answer %

1 Yes 71%

2 No 29%

Total 100%


# Answer %

1 Yes 71%

2 No 29%

Total 100%


#1 #2 #3 #4 #5

UBC ICBO AIA Minimum Standards for Healthcare Occ. NFPA 99

nfc AIA guilines IBC

IBC (Building) NEC (Electrical) UMC (Mechanical) UPC (Plumbing)

ASCE Ohio Building Code


Text Response

Loss of Use, denial of Licensure in Healthcare Facilities

No building occupancy

Fines, no CO, Red tag, locked out, building shut down, etc

Don't Know




# Answer %

1 Yes 14%

2 No 86%

Total 100%

13. How important do you think earthquake safety standards are to other professionals in the building community?

# Answer %


2 2 0%

3 3 0%


5 5 33%

6 6 17%


Total 100%


# Answer %


2 2 0%

3 3 0%


5 5 17%

6 6 50%





# Answer %






Total 100%


# Answer Response %


6 100%


0 0%

Total 6 100%


# Answer Response %

1 Architect 5 83%












5 83%






18. In your opinion, who has ultimate responsibility to see that buildings are compliant with nonstructural seismic safety deign standards? (Select one)

# Answer %

1 Architect 50%


3 Civil engineer 0%







10 Supplier or installer of specialty seismic bracing devices 0%






Total 100%




# Answer %





Total 100%




# Answer %


80%


80%


4 It was required for financing or insurance to be approved 60%


20%



20%


20%


20%



12 It is done as a matter of standard practice in my profession 60%


20%


0%







# Answer %



60%


20%

4 It is too time consuming to comply with these standards. 0%



20%



9 There is little incentive to comply with these standards. 20%

10 There is a lack of compensation for oversight compliance. 40%


0%


20%


0%



40%


20%



0%


20%



20%






# Answer %

1 Yes 20%

2 No 80%

Total 100%


# Answer %

1 Very common 20%

2 Occasional 20%

3 Rare 60%

Total 100%


# Answer %


80%


60%


80%


80%


60%


0%


20%




20%

9 The creation of a new system, with specific professional licensing requirements for this type of work, could lead to good design and construction practices.

40%


20%


40%


80%

13 Punishment of design professionals and contractors or others associated with non‐compliant buildings or facilities could lead to good design and construction practices.

20%



# Answer %




Total 100%


# Answer %




Total 100%




# Answer %




Total 100%


# Answer %




Total 100%


# Answer %




Total 100%


# Answer %




Total 100%



32. Rank the effectiveness of creating a certification for individuals responsible for ensuring compliance.

# Answer %




Total 100%


# Answer %




Total 100%


# Answer %




Total 100%


# Answer %




Total 100%




# Answer %




Total 100%

37. Rank the effectiveness of requiring equipment suppliers to design and install seismic anchorage and bracing systems

# Answer %




Total 100%


# Answer %




Total 100%


# Answer %




Total 100%




# Answer %




Total 100%

Appendix I Catalog of Verbal Interview Results by Discipline

Appendix I, Verbal Interview Results Page I‐1

Appendix I

Catalog of Verbal Responses Organized by Discipline



J.1 Purpose of Telephone Interviews This section contains a summary of verbal responses given during either telephone conversations with individuals from the various target groups, or from face to face conversations, after the Qualtrics survey was initiated. This information is organized by target group and by research topic. In this phase of the research, two basic questions were asked: 1) How well do you think the process of nonstructural seismic bracing is currently being accomplished? 2) To the extent that the process could be improved, what recommendations can you offer? Contrary to the electronic survey portion of the study, where a fairly rigid format of set responses was available for the respondent to choose from, no set response format or group of set response choices was provided. Respondent to these verbal inquires were asked if they had completed, or knew of, the on line survey. If they planned to or had responded to the electronic survey, no records of their verbal responses were kept in this appendix. This was done to avoid double counting responses. The information from these interviews is used in conjunction with the electronic survey results to formulate the conclusions and recommendations in Section 6 of the project report. 3) Unlike the on line electronic survey, the purpose of this portion of the research was to find the first reaction to this issue when it was stated. This provides an alternative insight to if code compliance exists, to what extent it is a problem, and how it could be solved in very simple terms.


I, Verbal Interview Results Page I‐3 Appendix

J.2 Analysis of Telephone Interview Comments No attempt is made to do statistical analysis of telephone interview results. However, some useful observations are as follows: 1) It was possible to get responses from all target groups by calling a company or government group and finding the appropriate person to speak to. However, any attempt to ask more than just a few questions sometimes met with resistance, unless the respondent already knew and trusted the caller. 2) There was a tendency of owners to trust their design professionals, even if they were unsure about exactly what was required for nonstructural bracing. 3) Sophisticated owners, such as schools, hospital and public utility representatives stated that they were very aware of the need to properly anchor and brace nonstructural items, regardless of the state they were in. 4) After the current research results for the entire study is done, a telephone survey of a broader group may be appropriate to test the effectiveness of proposed solution to increase the successful implement so nonstructural seismic bracing. This approach could result in statistically valid results if a narrow set of proposed solutions were tested. 5) There was sensitivity on the part of many telephone survey respondents to be blunt about whether or not the code provisions (and therefore if the law) was being complied with. There would very likely be less sensitivity to responding to a future survey concerned with mitigative solutions such as: would a continuing education course be useful, or should a specific specification section for nonstructural seismic bracing always be required, etc. 6) Structural engineer and architect responses were similar to the electronic survey, for the most part. Some architects in the telephone interviews were more candid in their belief that nonstructural seismic requirements were either overly conservative or unnecessarily complex.



7) Contractors expressed willingness to correctly construct nonstructural seismic measures, but often sated that general design details were unclear and very difficult to quantify and therefore accurately bid. 8) Several contractors suggested creation of or use of a separate specifications section devoted to nonstructural seismic requirements. Bids for nonstructural seismic bracing could then correspond to these specification sections. 9) Plan reviewer comments in the telephone interviews disclosed that some plan reviewers are actually under pressure to not carefully review nonstructural seismic provisions. 10) Getting MEP engineers to fill out the survey proved to be very difficult. Mechanical engineers often prefer to rely on design services provided by companies that also provide other equipment, such as vibration isolators, rather than do the design work themselves. Mechanical engineers reported that this aspect of their work was rarely reviewed if the facility was not a critical facility.



Table J-1: Responses to Verbal Inquires Target Group State Q1: How Effective are the Current

Nonstructural Seismic Design Provisions and Procedures

Q2: How Could the Process Design and Construction Process be Improved?

Architects 1) UT Variable Standard specifications are used, but with more detail provided

recently. The more detailed specifications, which require a PE signature, are more effective.

2) CA Very effective Strictly enforced by OSHPD, use this level of enforcement elsewhere.

3) CA Very effective Licensed SE’s do complete work, require SE’s to do work 4) UT Assumed to be done well, required for

drawings to be stamped by CE or SE Clearer design standards would be helpful.

5) WA Uncertain, variable Develop uniform enforcement procedures and clearer design guides

6) UT Effective Standard details on drawings are sufficient, not a high priority. 7) CA Uncertain An “overrated” concern in comparison to other design issues.

Should make design provisions simpler and less conservative. 8) UT Variable. This is a function of owner interest more than anything else. For

critical facilities, designs and enforcement are more complete. 9) CA Highly effective Design and inspection procedures are strict and clear for Hospitals

and schools. 10) UT Variable More education on what is really required. This would be a very

good continuing education topic for architects.






Code Enforcement Professionals

1) UT Variable Must be “careful” to enforce too rigidly due to pressure to get approvals done. Overzealous reviews could lead to losing job!

2) UT Not effective at all Not as important as the structure review, must be made a specific priority. Specific and consistent review methodology is needed.

3) UT Variable If the CE or SE stamps it, the liability is on them, no action needed

4) UT Variable Not strictly enforced or even understood. It is unclear who is responsible.

5) CA Very Effective It is “nearly impossible” to not construct required bracing measures, given enforcement environment.

6) CA Very Effective Strictly enforced for critical facilities. 7) CA Mostly Effective Less enforcement and sometimes unclear adaptation of “typical

details” that really are not representative of actual site conditions.


Appendix I, Verb 7 al Interview Results Page I‐




Construction Industry Project Managers; or Estimators;

1) UT Not effective and seldom done Require specific specification section and bid item 2) UT Varies widely by owner If owner requires the work and is strict, I hire a SE to do it. 3) CA Varies If a clear bid item, I’ll do it, otherwise it’s a change order 4) CA Highly effective Required by law and strictly enforced, no changes needed. 5) CA Highly effective The law if clear enforcing is strict 6) UT Not an important issue to this firm No change needed 7) CA Not clear It was assumed that vendors and MEP subs are installing braces

required by drawings. If not, then the building inspector should bring it to our attention. Inspection issue problems are rare.

8) WA Very Effective For the type of work done, various utilities, the work was required by the design professionals

9) UT Unknown Not clear who, from an inspection point of view, what is required. The design engineer is ultimately responsible.

10) CA Very effective Many of the projects managed were seismic retrofit projects






Developers

1) UT Unknown Assuming Architect is making sure this is done 2) UT Unknown In this economy this is a very low priority 3) CA Very Effective We do the work as a part of our risk management planning (This

person also represents a company that owns some of their properties)

4) UT Unknown Would expect Architect to be on top of this, just like any design issue

5) UT Effective for standard items Aware of ceiling bracing, generally that equipment should be tied down. Whoever the PM is responsible, if this work is required.






Equipment Suppliers

1) UT Unknown, I supply the electrical equipment only; it’s the owners or engineers responsibility to anchor.

Not use any improvement is needed or not.

2) UT Not important Equipment should be unanchored to allow it to move in an earthquake!

3) UT Unknown Our equipment has anchor bolts in the base of skids and in frames. The engineer needs to design the anchorage

4) UT Effective for our equipment We provided anchor bolt and tie down kits with our equipment. It is designed for “Zone 4”

5) CA Unknown We supply the equipment, the Architect or Engineers are responsible for any seismic design.

6) CA Very effective We work with specialty vibration isolation firms and engineers who know what the requirements are.

7) CA Unknown, but suspect effective Our equipment is not made in CA, if anchorage is needed, the Engineering project manager is responsible

8) CA Very effective We use SMACNA 9) UT Very effective We do not do calculations, but use NFPA details. 10) UT Very effective For a retrofit project and the design engineer knew what he was

doing.



Table J-1: Responses to Verbal Inquires Target Group

State Q1: How Effective are the Current Nonstructural Seismic Design Provisions and Procedures


Facility Managers

1) CA Effective For our facilities, which are part of several different types of facilities, office, retail, medical office and high end residential, we are strict about it. Our risk manger is also.

2) Several States

Effective This is something we require and try to keep track of as a part of our overall risk management processes.

3) Several States

Effective We have purchase and specifically retrofitted buildings and this work has been required as a result of due diligence studies.

4) UT Should be effective Expect design professionals to include if it is required. 5) UT Not important An earthquake is not likely to occur, other day to day issues like

energy efficiency are more important. 6) UT Effective We specifically look at this for our buildings. While we don’t

carefully inspect the work, that should be done as a part of construction administration by the architect.

7) UT Unknown This is the responsibility of those who stamp the drawings. 8) UT Mostly effective Funding of retrofit is an unresolved problem.


Appendix I, Verbal Inter Page I‐11 view Results

Table J-1: Responses to Verbal Inquires Target Group

State Q1: How Effective are the Current Nonstructural Seismic Design Provisions and Procedures


Facility Owners

1) UT In our facilities, very effective We only hire competent engineers who understand ASCE 7-05 and ASCE 41-06

2) UT I am sure this is done, if it is required. No improvement, we need to “be careful” not to let what “happened to California hospitals” happen here.

3) UT Effective It is the A/E’s job and they stamp the drawings, no change needed.

4) UT Effective It is the design firm’s job, and I assume they do what is needed. 5) CA Effective We strictly enforce this for business interruption avoidance

reasons 6) CA Effective We have done expensive retrofit programs to cover this. 7) CA Very effective For our facilities (a water Utility), this is done well. 8) CA Very Effective, although we need money for

more retrofit Several retrofit programs have been done. Others are still needed

9) CA Effective This has been a part of RMP or RMPP processes 10) CA Effective This type of work should be a par to the design Architects job.

However we do not have any out of the ordinal inspection programs to focus on just this.

11) UT Effective, more needed on existing buildings More FEMA funding or other funding is needed. 12) Several Effective Enforced in CA, this is a design engineers responsibility 13) WA Effective Effective, critical DOD facility 14) CA Our facilities span may different uses.

Offices, utilities etc. Effective for new design, more retrofit of existing needed..

Retrofit needs more attention and funding.






Grant Reviewers at the State and Federal Level.

1) UT Grant provisions are strict and thoroughly reviewed in this regard

Follow a process of peer review, as FEMA uses.

2) Responsible for several western states

Specific programs are available to increase the implementation of nonstructural seismic bracing programs

Better dissemination of useful “how to guides” that are already in place is needed.






Mechanical & Electrical Engineers

1) UT Effective We hire a specialty firm (two examples of firms provided) 2) UT Effective We hire a specialty firm. Specialty firms are based in California. 3) UT Varies Needs to be in SE’s specification sections if this is important. SE

knows allowable building roof loads. 4) UT Varies Don’t know who to go to for this type of design, not really part of

Electrical design process. 5) UT Effective SMACNA details are adequate 6) CA Effective for Hospitals, for other facilities

design is not always done thoroughly nor is work reviewed carefully by plan checkers or inspectors.

Making nonstructural bracing a specific specification section and a specific item required in bids would be very beneficial and would likely successful improve the state of the practice for nonessential buildings. Vibration isolated equipment is often not snubbed.

7) CA The codes are not clear and overly complex. Many associates are unsure of when bracing is required and when it is not.

Better education of mechanical and electrical engineers is needed to help them understand what is required. Requires coordination with SE for allowable building loads.

8) CA Probably OK, but not really sure. Better education needed. Understands MEP design, but not what is required for earthquake bracing.

9) CA For hospital, effective, for nonessential facilities, little attention is given to this.

Personally aware of many instances of unsnubbed vibration isolators, completely or very poorly braced pipe.

10) UT Unsure, noticed more requirements in specs lately

Appears like enforcement is starting to be stricter.






Structural Engineers

1) CA Very effective Follow OSHPD type enforcement 2) CA Very effective It’s my job to make sure this work is done correctly. 3) UT Varies This is not something we get paid to do, it’s either the ME job or

the equipment supplier’s job. 4) UT Varies For some hospital owners it is done correctly, needs to be

enforced. 5) UT Varies This is the MEP engineers responsibility 6) UT Varies highly, depending on owner If the owner is concerned and specific designs are done, the work

is thorough and inspected. This is very owner driven. 7) CA Usually effective If done by an SE, verses a PE, the work will be done effectively.

Require an SE only to do this work 8) CA Usually effective This is the clear domain and responsibility of the SE.






Specialty Contractors

1) CA Effective if our products and design guides are used

Better project management

2) CA Effective We are hired for jobs where we do this work. Not sure of other jobs.

3) CA Effective if we are used We have a complete line of vibration isolation and MEP bracing items that are preapproval and used extensively

4) CA, other Western States

Effective This is our business, but I am definitely aware of cases where the work is not done or done poorly on Spec buildings.

5) CA Effective, especially if we do the design and installation.

The codes are clear, and we do this work as part of out overall business.

6) UT Variable Effective if the owner cares

Appendix J Page J‐1


Appendix J- References ATC (2008), Reducing Risks of Nonstructural Earthquake Damage State of the Art and Practice

Report, ATC-69 Report, Applied Technology Council, Redwood City, California ASCE (2006-1), Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and Other Structures, ASCE/SEI 7-05,

American Society of Civil Engineers, Reston, Virginia ASCE (2006-2), Seismic Rehabilitation of Existing Buildings, ASCE/SEI 41-06, American

Society of Civil Engineers, Reston, Virginia ASCE (2003), Seismic Evaluation of Existing Buildings, ASCE/SEI 31-03, American Society of

Civil Engineers, Reston, Virginia Anderson, N. E. (2000), Seismic adjustments: The influence of inconvenience and efficacy

perceptions, state of residence, and demographic factors. Unpublished master’s thesis: Brigham Young University.

Bickman, L. (1972) Social Influence and diffusion of responsibility in an emergency, Journal of

Experimental Social Psychology, 8, pp 438-445. California Office of Emergency Services (OES), (2003) Nonstructural Earthquake Hazards in

California Schools, California Office of Emergency Services, Sacramento, California California Department of Education (1998) Commercial Property Owner’s Guide to Earthquake

Safety, Sacramento, California California Building Standards Administrative Code (CAC), Title 24, (2007), Sacramento,

California Donaldson, S. I., Graham, J. W., & Hansen, W. B. (1994) Testing the generalizability of

intervening mechanism theories: Understanding the effects of adolescent drug use prevention interventions, Journal of Behavioral Medicine, 17, 195-216.

Donaldson, S. I., Graham, J. W., Piccinin, A. M., & Hansen, W. B. (1995). Resistance-skills

training and onset of alcohol use; Evidence for beneficial and potentially harmful effects in public schools and in private Catholic schools. Health Psychology, 14, 291-300.

FEMA , PDMC2008 (www.fema.gov)


FEMA 313, (1998) Promoting the Adoption and Enforcement of Seismic Building Codes: A Guide for State Earthquake and Mitigation Managers, Federal Emergency Management Agency, Washington, D.C.

FEMA 412, (2005) Installation Seismic Restraints for Mechanical Equipment, , Federal

Emergency Management Agency, Washington, D.C. FEMA 413, (2004-1) Installing Seismic Restraints for Electrical Equipment, Federal Emergency

Management Agency, Washington, D.C. FEMA 414, (2004-2) Installing Seismic Restraints for Duct and Pipe, , Federal Emergency

Management Agency, Washington, D.C. FEMA 461, (2007), Interim Testing Protocols for Determine the Seismic Performance

Characteristics of Structural and Nonstructural Components, Federal Emergency Management Agency, Washington, D.C.

SMACNA, (2000), Seismic Restraint Manual: Guidelines for Mechanical Systems, Sheet Metal

and Air Conditioning Contractor’s National Association, Chantilly, Virginia Kunreuther, H., Ginsber, R., Miller, L., Sagi, P., Slovic, P., Borkan, B., & Katz, N. (1978).

Disaster insurance protection: Public policy lessons. New York: Wiley Press. Goethals, G.R., Messick, S.M. & Allision, S.T. (1991), The Uniqueness Bias: Studies of

Constructive Social Comparison, In J. Suls & T.A. Wills (Eds.), Social Comparison: Contemporary Theory and Research, Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum

Heller, K., Alexander, D. B., Gatz, J., Knight, B. G., & Rose, T. (2005). Social and personal

factors as predictors of earthquake preparation: The role of support provision, network discussion, negative affect, age, and education. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 35, 399-422.

Hess, Richard, (2008), “Lateral Bracing for Equipment and Fixtures, Thoughts for the Editorial

Board” , Structure Magazine, April 2008 ICC, (2006), International Building Code, International Code Council, Washington D.C. Lindell, M.K., Prater, C.S. & Perry, R.W. (2006). Fundamentals of emergency

management. Emmitsburg, MD: Federal Emergency Management Agency Emergency Management Institute. Available at www.training.fema.gov/EMIWeb/edu/fem.asp.

Latané, B., & Darley, J. M. (1970). The unresponsive bystander: Why doesn’t he help? New

York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.


Masek, J, P. Reitherman, Robert K (1990). “Current Problems Implementation of Nonstructural Earthquake Hazard Reduction Efforts”,

Proceedings of [the] Seminar and Workshop on Seismic Design and Performance of Equipment and Nonstructural Elements in Buildings and Industrial Structures; Irvine, California, October 3-5, 1990. Applied Technology Council, Redwood City, CA, 1992, pages 53-59. Masek, J., Reaveley, L., Wong, I.,( 2003) Metropolitan Water District of Salt Lake and Sandy

Seismic Policy Document, Salt Lake City, Utah

Masek, J., Ott, J. (2005), “Consideration of Earthquake Hazard Mitigation as a Component of Water/Wastewater Facility Modification or Expansion”, Proceedings of the Water Environmental Federation Technology Conference, pp. 404-417

Moses, F. (1998). Probabilistic-based structural specifications. Risk Analysis, 18, 445-454. NFPA, (2007), Standard of the Installation of Sprinkler Systems, NFPA 13, National Fire

Protection Association, Quincy Massachusetts Pallak, M. S., Cook, D. A., & Sullivan, J. J. (1980). Commitment and energy conservation. In L.

Bickman (Ed.), Applied Social Psychology Annual, 1, 235-253. Palm, R. (1995). Earthquake insurance: A longitudinal study of California homeowners.

Boulder, CO: Westview Press. Petak, William J., Alesch Daniel, (2008) “Structural and non-structural earthquake design: The

challenge of integrating specialty areas in designing complex critical facilities”, unpublished draft, January 31, 2008

Prater, C.S. & Lindell, M.K. (2000). Politics of hazard mitigation. Natural

Hazards Review, 1, 73-82. Qualtrics: Qualtrics Statistical Analysis Software (2008 version), www.qualtrics.com. Scheel, Norman, (2007) SEAOC Field Act White Paper, “A seismic safety program for

California Community Colleges Structural Engineers Association of California (SEAOC), (2006), “2006 IBC Structural/Seismic

Design Manual”, Structural Engineers Association of California, Sacramento, California Singh,M.P., Suarez, L.E., Matheau, E.E., Maldonado, G.O., (1993) “Simplified procedures for

seismic design of nonstructural components and assessment of current code provisions”, NCEER Publication-93-0013

Sullivan, R., Mustart, D. A., & Galehouse, J. S. (1977). Living in earthquake country.

California, Geology, 30, 3-8.