2012 Issue

56 The Seismic Committee, to help increase public awareness of seismic hazards in Utah has provided several public educational efforts over the past several years. These efforts have focused on increasing seismic safety for our buildings. There have been three major topics that the Seismic Com- mittee has presented training on. The first is on a document produced by FEMA titled Incremental Seismic Rehabil- itation of School Buildings (K-12) ( FEMA 395). The purpose of this document is to encourage seismic strengthening of K-12 schools. This document recognizes that seismic strengthening of buildings can be expensive and as such it helps school districts develop “Incremental” plans for seismically upgrading buildings that can be accomplished as part of remodel projects, maintenance or repairs of build- ings. For example during a re-roof it is an excellent time to strengthen the roof diaphragm (roof deck) and to create in- terconnecting ties between the roof and the supporting walls. By providing this strengthening during the re-roof the cost of the partial seismic upgrade is kept to a minimum and the seismic strengthening is tied to a routine part of the mainte- nance of the building. While the seismic upgrade would not be complete until the supporting structure is strengthened, this seismic strengthening of the roof can greatly minimize the damage to a building following an earthquake. The target audience of this presentation on FEMA 395 was the Utah Facilities Operation & Maintenance Association (UFOMA) which has the basic purpose of helping school districts in the State of Utah develop and maintain high standards for the operation of the K-12 school buildings in our state. The second major topic that training was provided for was on the importance of providing seismic bracing of non-struc- tural components of buildings. In recent years the damage to the main structural components of buildings in countries that have well-developed codes and good enforcement practices has become minimal. However, this cannot be said for the non-structural components and con- tents of buildings. It is very important to consider the non-structural components and building-content, since these ele- ments typically represent a much larger investment in construction costs than the structure itself. (See Figure 2.1.3-1 from FEMA E-74 Reducing the Risks of Non- Structural Earth Quake Damage ). There are several examples in recent years of non-structural damage that ren- dered otherwise safe buildings unusable. One is the 1994 Northridge Earthquake. Immediately following this earthquake, there were ten hospitals in the Los Ange- les area that had to be shut down due to non-structural damage. These hospitals had little to no structural damage. One of the most important times for a hospital to be functional is immediately follow- ing a disaster, and these hospitals were unable to accept patients following the Northridge Earthquake. Another example is last year’s earthquake in Japan. This devastating earthquake caused few structural failures due to ground shaking (this excludes the dam- age caused by the tsunami). However, non-structural damage was seen in many places, including many manufacturing plants. Consider the following from a New York Times article dated April 30, 2011: Hitachinaka, Japan — A modern car is a computer on wheels. The window open- ers, the dashboard navigation maps, the fuel injectors — these and many other operations are controlled by some of the 100 or so electronic systems in a typical car. No wonder the magnitude 9.0 earth- quake that knocked out one of the world’s leading automotive computer- chip factories struck such a severe and lasting blow to the global auto industry. Since the March 11 earthquake, the lack of chips from this plant is a big reason automobile production has slowed to half its normal rate in Japan and is at a crawl in some factories in the United States and elsewhere. And plant officials here last week ac- knowledged that this critical link in the supply chain would be restored only gradually, despite the round-the-clock efforts of an army of workers to repair the cracked walls, collapsed ceilings and out-of-kilter equipment caused by the quake. (Emphasis added.) Note that the repair required at this manufacturing facility, as emphasized above, is all non-structural in nature. It has been estimated that a 6.0 magni- tude earthquake centered in Taylorsville, SEISMIC | continued from page 55