SOAReport

ATC 69
Reducing the Risks of Nonstructural

Earthquake Damage
State-of-the-Art and Practice Report
Applied Technology Council

Funded by
Department of Homeland Security
Federal Emergency Management Agency
In Cooperation with
National Earthquake Hazard Reduction Program
ATC-69
Reducing the Risks of

Nonstructural Earthquake Damage
State-of-the-Art and Practice
Report
Prepared by
APPLIED TECHNOLOGY COUNCIL
201 Redwood Shores Parkway, Suite 240
Redwood City, California 94065
www.ATCouncil.org
Prepared for
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY
FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY
Cathleen M. Carlisle, Project Monitor
Washington, D.C.
TASK ORDER CONTRACT MANAGEMENT SUBJECT MATTER EXPERT

Christopher Rojahn (Project Executive Director) Barry Welliver
Jon A. Heintz (Project Quality Control Monitor)
William T. Holmes (Project Technical Monitor) PROJECT REVIEW PANEL
Thomas R. McLane (Project Manager) Robert K. Reitherman (Chair)
Tim P. Brown
PROJECT MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE Mary C. Comerio
Maryann Phipps (Lead Technical Consultant) David Conover
Robert Bachman Doug Fitts
James Carlson Michael J. Griffin
Eduardo A. Fierro John R. Henry
Richard Kirchner Steven Kuan
Cynthia L. Perry Jeffrey R. Soulages
Jon A. Heintz (ex-officio) William T. Holmes (ex-officio)
Christopher Rojahn (ex-officio)
February 29, 2008

Preface
In September of 2006, under its ongoing “Seismic and Multi-Hazard

Technical Guidance Development and Support” contract (HSFEHQ-04-D-
0621) with the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), the
Applied Technology Council (ATC) was awarded a task entitled “Update of
FEMA 74, Reducing the Risks of Nonstructural Earthquake Damage – A
Practical Guide,” designated the ATC-69 Project. The primary objective of
this project is to update the third edition of the FEMA 74 report, Reducing
the Risks of Nonstructural Earthquake Damage – A Practical Guide, issued
by FEMA in 1994.
FEMA 74 explains the sources of earthquake damage that can occur in

nonstructural components, and provides information on effective methods of
reducing risk associated with nonstructural earthquake damage. It is
intended for use by a lay audience, including building owners, facility
managers, maintenance personnel, store or office managers, corporate/agency
department heads, and homeowners. The reference material contained within
the third edition of FEMA 74 is now approaching 20 years old. A
considerable amount of new information now exists as a result of ongoing
National Earthquake Hazard Reduction Program (NEHRP) activities, local
and state government programs, private sector initiatives, and academic work
focused on reducing the potential for nonstructural earthquake damage.
This State of the Art and Practice Report presents the results of research
conducted on the current state of knowledge and practice with regard to
bracing and anchorage of nonstructural components and contents. It serves
as background information for the update of FEMA 74, and provides context
for expanding future guidance on reducing the risk of nonstructural
earthquake damage, considering different classes of components, different
audiences or stakeholder groups, and higher performance objectives.
ATC gratefully acknowledges the ATC-69 Project Management Committee,

including Maryann Phipps, Robert Bachman, James Carlson, Eduardo Fierro,
Richard Kirchner, and Cynthia Perry, for their efforts in researching and
developing the material contained in this report. The affiliations of these
individuals are provided in the list of project participants.
ATC also gratefully acknowledges Cathleen Carlisle (FEMA Project

Monitor) and Barry Welliver (Subject Matter Expert) for their input and
ATC-69 Preface iii

guidance in the preparation of this report, Peter N. Mork for ATC report
production services, Thomas R. McLane as ATC Project Manager, and
Steven Kuan as ATC Board Contact on this project.
Jon A. Heintz Christopher Rojahn

ATC Director of Projects ATC Executive Director
iv Preface ATC-69
Table of Contents
Preface............................................................................................................ iii
List of Figures ............................................................................................... vii
List of Tables ................................................................................................. ix
1 Introduction ..................................................................................... 1-1
2 Global Context for Nonstructural Issues......................................... 2-1
3 Nonstructural Damage Data Collected from Past Earthquakes ...... 3-1

3.1 General ............................................................................... 3-1
3.2 Problems with Collection of Nonstructural
Earthquake Damage Data .................................................. 3-1
3.3 Available Nonstructural Earthquake Damage Data ........... 3-3
3.4 Ongoing Problems with the Performance of
Nonstructural Components ................................................ 3-5
3.5 Nonstructural Components that Interact with
Structural Systems ............................................................. 3-6
4 Code Requirements for Nonstructural Components and

Contents .......................................................................................... 4-1
4.1 Building Code Requirements ............................................. 4-1
4.2 Enforcement of Code Requirements .................................. 4-7
4.2.1 Plan Review .......................................................... 4-7
4.2.2 Construction Inspection ........................................ 4-7
4.3 Other Standards and Protocols ........................................... 4-8
4.4 Requirements for Nonstructural Components in
Existing Buildings.............................................................. 4-8
4.5 Requirements for Contents ................................................ 4-9
4.6 Validation and Refinement of Code Requirements for
Nonstructural Components .............................................. 4-10
5 Current Practice for Seismic Design and Installation of Nonstructural

Components in the United States. ................................................... 5-1
5.1 General ............................................................................... 5-1
5.2 Examples of Nonstructural Seismic Design Practice ......... 5-2
5.2.1 Standard Occupancy Construction........................ 5-2
5.2.2 California Hospital Construction .......................... 5-3
5.2.3 Private Sector Technology Construction .............. 5-4
5.2.4 Local Government Enforcement ........................... 5-5
5.3 Equipment Specification .................................................. .5-7
5.4 Structural System Selection ............................................... 5-8
ATC-69 Table of Contents v

6 Guidance Documents Relevant to Seismic Design and
Installation of Nonstructural Components ..................................... 6-1
7 Nonproprietary Details and Other Resources for Nonstructural

Components..................................................................................... 7-1
8 Proprietary Details and Products for the Protection of

Nonstructural Components .............................................................. 8-1
9 Recent and Ongoing Research and Development on

Nonstructural Issues ........................................................................ 9-1
9.1 Genera1 .............................................................................. 9-1
9.2 Federally Funded Projects and Initiatives .......................... 9-1
9.2.1 NSF-Funded ATC-29 Project ............................... 9-1
9.2.2 FEMA-Funded ATC-58 Project ............................ 9-3
9.2.3 NSF-Funded NEES Grand Challenge ................... 9-4
9.3 National Earthquake Engineering Research Center
Activities ........................................................................... 9-4
9.4 Private Sector Research in the United States ..................... 9-5
9.5 International Research ........................................................ 9-5
10 Future Needs ................................................................................. 10-1

10.1 Overview .......................................................................... 10-1
10.2 Recommendations ............................................................ 10-2
Appendix A Log of Reported Nonstructural Earthquake

Damage ............................................................................... A-1
Appendix B List of Resources Related to Nonstructural

Components ........................................................................ B-1
References ................................................................................................... C-1
Project Participants ...................................................................................... D-1
Applied Technology Council Projects and Report Information .................. E-1
Applied Technology Council Directors .......................................................F-1
vi Table of Contents ATC-69

List of Figures
Figure 5-1 St. Louis County Seismic Code Block, Attachment A ......... 5-5
Figure 5-2 St. Louis County Seismic Code Block, Attachment B .......... 5-6
ATC-69 List of Figures vii

List of Tables
Table A-1 Log of Reported Nonstructural Earthquake

Damage ................................................................................ A-3
Table B-1 Codes and Standards Related to Nonstructural

Components ..........................................................................B-3
Table B-2 Guidance Documents Related to Nonstructural

Components ..........................................................................B-9
Table B-3 Nonproprietary Details and Other Resources for

Nonstructural Components..................................................B-19
Table B-4 Proprietary Details and Products for the Protection of

Table B-5 Recent and Ongoing Research Related to Nonstructural

Components ........................................................................B-29
ATC-69 List of Tables ix

Chapter 1
Introduction
This report summarizes the current state of knowledge and practice regarding
the seismic performance of nonstructural components of buildings. It
addresses architectural, mechanical, electrical, and plumbing components,
which are typically considered to be part of the building and the
responsibility of the building owner. It also addresses building contents,
such as furniture and movable partitions, which are typically the
responsibility of the building occupant.
Information contained in this report is the result of interviews with architects,

engineers, building officials, equipment manufacturers and contractors
practicing in seismically active regions across the United States, and an
extensive literature search of available information on nonstructural seismic
design practice and earthquake damage to nonstructural components.
Nonstructural damage cited in this report involves direct earthquake damage
to nonstructural components. Damage caused by unintended interaction
between nonstructural components and the structural system is outside the
scope of this study.
The purpose of this report is to: (1) assess current knowledge

and practice regarding nonstructural earthquake damage and its prevention;
(2) recommend steps that can be taken to improve seismic performance of
nonstructural components and contents; and (3) identify practical needs and
available resources that could be used as a basis for updating FEMA 74,
Reducing the Risks of Nonstructural Earthquake Damage – A Practical
Guide, Third Edition, published in 1994.
This report is organized as follows:
Chapter 1 Introduction
Chapter 2 Global Context for Nonstructural Issues - An overview of
nonstructural problems in terms of overall international
seismic risk.
Chapter 3 Nonstructural Damage Data Collected from Past Earthquakes –
A discussion of challenges associated with the collection of
data on nonstructural earthquake damage, and a discussion of
the performance of nonstructural components during past
earthquakes.
ATC-69 1: Introduction 1-1

Chapter 4 Code Requirements for Nonstructural Components and
Contents – A chronicle of the historic foundation from which
current code provisions have evolved, a description of 2006
International Building Code requirements, and a discussion of
other code-related issues.
Chapter 5 Current Practice for Seismic Design and Installation of
Nonstructural Components in the United States – A summary
of information gathered by the project team regarding current
design, plan review, construction and inspection practices.
Chapter 6 Guidance Documents Relevant to Seismic Design and
Installation of Nonstructural Components – A compendium of
handbooks and guidelines that are available to assist with
nonstructural hazard mitigation.
Chapter 7 Nonproprietary Details and Other Resources for Nonstructural
Components - A bibliography of reference materials and
resources that provide standard or generic details for the
seismic anchorage or restraint of nonstructural components and
contents.
Chapter 8 Proprietary Details and Products for the Protection of
Nonstructural Components – A reference list of some of the
many types of proprietary details, devices, and systems that are
currently available for the seismic anchorage or restraint of
nonstructural components and contents.
Chapter 9 Recent and Ongoing Research and Development on
Nonstructural Issues – An overview of selected recent and
ongoing research in this area.
Chapter 10 Future Needs – Recommendations for FEMA 74 and beyond.
Appendices Reference tables containing expanded lists of nonstructural

earthquake damage and resource materials summarized in this
report.
1-2 1: Introduction ATC-69

Chapter 2
Global Context for
Nonstructural Issues
Many have suggested that global seismic risk is on the rise as a result of
increased global population. Tragically, earthquakes in many countries can
still be expected to result in significant loss of life. This is particularly true
for urban populations in developing countries, where codes addressing
seismic issues have not been adopted or implemented, and the risk of
wholesale structural collapse remains high. For these communities, the
primary concern is related to preventing catastrophic structural collapse.
In developed countries, or areas where codes addressing seismic issues have

been implemented, improved seismic design and construction practice has
helped to reduce the possibility of catastrophic structural collapse. Over
time, as structural systems and technologies improve, and older buildings are
demolished or upgraded, an increasing number of structures can be expected
to survive major earthquakes without significant structural damage or
collapse. Eventually, the concern for earthquake risk is expected to shift to
where the majority of the focus is on damage to nonstructural systems and
contents.
Since 1970, only two people per year on average have died in the United
States due to building collapse, even though this period includes a number of
large, damaging earthquakes. Average economic loss during this same
period has been about $2 billion per year. A FEMA study based on
theoretical simulations suggests that future economic losses due to
earthquakes could average $4.5 billion per year (Kircher, 2003).
The structural system of an engineered building in the United States typically

represents between 10% and 20% of the overall construction cost.
Depending on the type of construction, type of occupancy, and relative cost
of mechanical, electrical and plumbing (MEP) systems and contents, this
percentage can change. It can be somewhat higher for standard office
buildings and somewhat lower for critical-care medical buildings and high
technology manufacturing facilities, but the overall trend remains the same.
A larger portion of the capital investment for constructing most buildings is
dedicated to the nonstructural systems and the building contents.
ATC-69 2: Global Context for Nonstructural Issues 2-1

The relative importance of nonstructural issues is on the rise, and the
earthquake engineering community is faced with an increasing awareness of
the enormous magnitude of potential losses associated with nonstructural
damage. Long after the seismic performance of structural systems has been
improved, the myriad of increasingly complex and costly nonstructural
systems and contents in modern buildings will continue to present new
challenges to the overall seismic performance of buildings.
Performance-Based Earthquake Engineering (PBEE), and the future of

seismic design, will be fueled in part by the need to improve the seismic
performance of nonstructural systems. Post-earthquake functionality and
operability will not be delivered until effective strategies are devised to
minimize nonstructural damage.
2-2 2: Global Context for Nonstructural Issues ATC-69

Chapter 3
Nonstructural Damage
Data Collected from
Past Earthquakes
3.1 General
Every earthquake that resulted in building damage has also resulted in

damage to nonstructural components and building contents. Bottles on
shelves have tipped, books in libraries have fallen, plaster and paint have
cracked, and unreinforced masonry parapets have collapsed, even in small
magnitude events. Nearly every earthquake report ever written has
mentioned some type of nonstructural damage.
The Modified Mercalli Scale (MMI) of 1931 defines intensity on a scale of

I to XII. Intensity levels from I through VII are defined in terms of the
performance of nonstructural items, such as “small unstable objects
displaced,” “pendulum clocks stop,” “windows, dishes, glassware broken,”
“books off shelves,” “bells ring,” “weak chimneys broken at roof line,”
“cornices and architectural ornaments fall,” (Richter, 1957). Nevertheless,
generating statistics regarding the extent of losses due to nonstructural
damage remains elusive because data have not been collected in a way that
allows for statistical analyses.
3.2 Problems with Collection of Nonstructural

Earthquake Damage Data
The Earthquake Engineering Research Institute (EERI) and other

professional organizations have published hundreds of accounts of
earthquake damage, and have consistently reported on major international
earthquakes since the 1960s. While nearly every report includes some
information and photo documentation of nonstructural damage, most do not
have sufficient information to generate statistical data regarding deaths and
injuries, direct economic losses and repair costs, or downtime that can be
attributed to failures of nonstructural components and contents.
Part of the problem with data collection is that the earthquake engineering
community has divided building components into two groups: (1) the
components of the structural system; and (2) all nonstructural components
ATC-69 3: Nonstructural Damage Data 3-1

Collected from Past Earthquakes
and systems plus the building contents. These groups are not consistent with
ownership or insurance interests. Building components are typically owned,
leased, and insured on the basis of two different groups: (1) the structural
system plus all nonstructural systems, which are typically the responsibility
of the building owner; and (2) building contents, which are typically the
responsibility of the building tenant or occupant.
In a building with minor structural damage and major nonstructural damage,

only the earthquake engineering community is interested in apportioning
these losses between structural damage, nonstructural damage, and content
damage. A building owner may file a claim for earthquake damage, but the
claim usually lumps structural and nonstructural damage together. A
building may have experienced economic losses associated with content
damage and downtime, but in a building occupied by multiple tenants, this
information is not likely to exist in any one complete and consistent source.
In the absence of a financial or other stakeholder need to collect
nonstructural loss data in the proper format, the data become very hard to
find.
Most detailed earthquake reconnaissance efforts have been devoted to

gathering data following catastrophic earthquake events. In these situations,
it is often hard to get a handle on total losses. Reconnaissance teams often
focus on spectacular and photogenic failures, such as collapsed buildings and
heavily damaged structures. When nonstructural damage is investigated,
teams are typically directed to locations with collapsed ceiling grids or
broken water pipes, and not to the many locations where these components
may not have failed. Damaged contents are often cleaned up before
reconnaissance teams arrive. Damaged infrastructure, such as water piping,
electrical, and mechanical distribution systems may be repaired soon after the
event, but cracked gypsum board walls may be painted months or years later,
as part of routine maintenance.
Detailed earthquake reconnaissance efforts are also time consuming and

expensive. Reitherman (1998) discusses the types of data needed, difficulties
in gathering these data, and costs involved in collecting such data. Although
EERI Reconnaissance Team labor was provided free of charge after the 1994
Northridge Earthquake, the cost of gathering and reporting nonstructural
damage data, as it was performed, was estimated to have been $275,000. To
perform data collection to a higher (recommended) level of quality and
completeness, the estimated cost would have been $750,000. For an
earthquake four times the size of the Northridge earthquake, which is within
the credible limits of damage for California earthquakes, the estimated cost
would have been approximately $1.5 million.
3-2 3: Nonstructural Damage Data ATC-69

While several researchers have developed their own methods of collecting
data, there are no current standards for the collection, organization and
presentation of damage data, making it hard to compare across data sets or
draw meaningful conclusions from a given data set. Within one such data set,
the Nonstructural Damage Database, MCEER-99-0014 (Kao and Soong,
1999), there are 1,264 unique descriptions for the category “equipment.”
Within another data set, the ATC-38 database on the performance of
structures near strong-motion recordings (ATC, 2000), some nonstructural
components are subdivided by type, while others are not. In “A Taxonomy
of Building Components for Performance-Based Earthquake Engineering,”
Porter (2005) has attempted to address some of these issues, and a
standardized taxonomy to characterize nonstructural items has been
proposed.
Bachman (2004) suggests that we have reached a point where nonstructural

component and building content losses in recent events in developed
countries represent 50% of total earthquake losses, but it is hard to find
sufficient data to substantiate this view. Projections of damage from the
1994 Northridge Earthquake, for example, are based largely on a simulation
of damage using HAZUS and ShakeMap, rather than on actual damage data.
According to Kircher (2003), “comprehensive data on building damage do
not exist for the Northridge Earthquake, and comprehensive nonstructural
damage data are even harder to come by.”
As a result, even EERI reports that have a special chapter on nonstructural

damage, most notably the report on the 1994 Northridge Earthquake
(Reitherman et al., 1995), have only limited information useful for generating
meaningful statistics on overall losses from damage to nonstructural
components and contents. For example, it is usually not possible to know
how many lineal feet of sprinkler piping failed during a particular
earthquake, as a percentage of the total lineal feet of sprinkler piping in an
affected area. Information is not available on the specifics of which sprinkler
components were damaged, the cost to repair damaged sprinkler piping, the
number of injuries, and to what extent business interruption could be
attributed to broken sprinkler lines.
3.3 Available Nonstructural Earthquake Damage

Data
Appendix A, Table A-1, summarizes data from a sampling of major

earthquakes in the United States and abroad. Much of this information was
obtained from EERI Reconnaissance Reports. Organized by earthquake in
reverse chronological order, the table lists the name and date of the

earthquake, source of the information, and a brief description of available
information on nonstructural damage. Many reports cited in Table A-1
include illustrative photos along with anecdotal evidence of damage to
nonstructural components and contents. Statistical data are often scant, and
conclusions about the overall impact of nonstructural damage cannot be
drawn from the available reports, other than to say that it is clearly very
significant.
Almost every type of architectural, mechanical, electrical, and plumbing

component has been damaged in some earthquake, somewhere. Direct
damage to nonstructural items has been compounded many times by the
effects of leaking water or other fluids, the release of asbestos, toxic gases,
chemicals, or other hazardous materials. Nonstructural components and
contents that have been repeatedly reported as damaged include the
following:
• Architectural components: partitions; suspended ceilings; storefronts;
glazing; cladding and veneers; unreinforced masonry parapets, chimneys,
and fences; and architectural ornaments.
• Mechanical, Electrical, Plumbing (MEP) components: small bore piping
such as sprinkler distribution lines; large bore piping; pressure piping;
connections of piping to equipment; ductwork; suspended lighting; roof
mounted equipment; spring isolated equipment; elevators; water heaters;
and vertical tanks.
• Contents: tall shelving; book cases; inventory stored on shelving such as
retail merchandise, liquor bottles, library books, and medical records;
computers and desktop equipment; wall and ceiling mounted TVs and
monitors; file cabinets; industrial chemicals or hazardous materials; and
museum artifacts and collectibles. Also classified as “contents,” larger
items such as industrial storage racks and specialty building service
equipment (e.g., medical equipment including CT scanners, operating
room lights, and refrigerators) are also frequently reported as damaged.
Porter (2002) cites a number of damage surveys performed over the years,
some of which included nonstructural damage. He notes that not all of these
data are readily available in the public sector. The ATC-38 Project database
is one such data set from the 1994 Northridge Earthquake that is publicly
available. Another readily available database is the MCEER-99-0014
Nonstructural Damage Database, which includes 2909 entries for
nonstructural damage taken from reports covering 52 international
earthquakes between 1964 and 1999.

While the MCEER database is the most extensive database of nonstructural
damage information found, it has limitations. There are only five categories
covering all types of equipment, and seven categories covering all building
types. A category for “damage ratio” is included, but only 371 (or 13%) of
the 2909 entries have any data in this category, and the information provided
is limited. Sample database entries on nonstructural damage include: for
ceilings, “50% of tiles fell;” for sprinkler lines leaking, “throughout;” for
generators, “1/3” (meaning that 1 of 3 emergency generators was damaged).
3.4 Ongoing Problems with the Performance of

Nonstructural Components
As more recent data in Table A-1 show, problems with inadequate

performance of nonstructural components continues to occur. In spite of past
efforts to improve bracing and anchorage of nonstructural components and
contents, particularly in California hospitals and schools, costly failures are
still possible. The Olive View Hospital, which suffered extensive structural
damage following the 1971 San Fernando Earthquake, was demolished and
rebuilt using a stronger and more rigid structural system. It was evacuated
again following the 1994 Northridge Earthquake due to nonstructural
damage to ceilings, sprinkler piping, and chilled water piping, and the
resultant water damage throughout the facility (Reitherman et al., 1995).
This is largely the result of the way building codes have been written,
interpreted, and applied in practice. Historically, despite the presence of
code provisions regulating seismic design of nonstructural components, the
design and installation of architectural, mechanical, electrical and plumbing
systems has traditionally been done without consideration of seismic forces
or checks for compatibility of deformations. The continued poor
performance of these components has prompted changes in the building
codes, and an increasing number of items are subject to minimum seismic
design requirements, but the implementation and enforcement of these design
provisions has been inconsistent.
Problems with the performance of nonstructural components can be expected

to continue. New types of nonstructural components and contents are
continually being invented. As technology is relied upon more heavily in
homes, offices, hospitals, airports, and schools, there are increasing numbers
of objects to address, and new potential economic and safety risks. Many
homes now have heavy wall-mounted televisions, public places have
suspended cameras and monitors, and plenum spaces above office ceilings
are becoming increasingly congested with additional overhead items. Tall
buildings are becoming taller in many metropolitan areas, and potential

falling hazards associated with glazing, cladding, and veneers are
compounded. The list of nonstructural components and contents will
continue to grow, as will the complexity of restraining many new and
interconnected nonstructural systems.
3.5 Nonstructural Components that Interact with

Structural Systems
Nonstructural earthquake damage cited in this report involves direct damage

to nonstructural components only. While most nonstructural components do
not affect the seismic performance of structural systems, it is important to
point out that some do. Rigid nonstructural components that are not isolated
from the structural system can have an unintended influence on the structural
system, often precipitating failure or collapse. Damage to structural systems
caused by unintended interaction with nonstructural components is outside
the scope of this project, and this type of damage has been excluded from the
information contained in Appendix A, Table A-1.
One example of this type of interaction is a common cause of structural

failure observed in concrete buildings. A short column effect can be created
by rigid nonstructural components that interact with structural columns,
reducing the effective height over which the columns can deform. Short
columns are most often caused by masonry infill walls adjacent to concrete
columns, but failures have also been caused by rigid handrails, precast
panels, masonry planters, or heavy steel window mullions.
While not a focus of this report, potential interaction between structural and
nonstructural components is an important issue, and is addressed in current
structural and nonstructural component design requirements. Designers are
required to check for compatibility of deformations between the structural
system and nonstructural components in order to avoid any unintended
interactions and adverse effects on the performance of the building.

Chapter 4
Code Requirements for
and Contents
4.1 Building Code Requirements
Codes regulate building construction and use in order to protect the health,
safety and welfare of building occupants. In the United States, model codes
are developed by codes and standards organizations, and adopted by local
jurisdictions. A number of federal agencies, including the U.S. Department
of Defense, the National Park Service, the Department of State, and the
Forest Service, use private-sector model codes for projects funded by the
federal government.
Prior to 2000, there were three organizations producing three model building
codes in the United States. These were the International Conference of
Building Officials (ICBO), which produced the Uniform Building Code
(UBC), the Southern Building Code Congress International (SBCCI), which
produced the Standard Building Code, and the Building Officials and Code
Administrators International, Inc. (BOCA), which produced the National
Building Code. Because the organizations that developed these codes were
located in different regions of the country, they focused on criteria for natural
hazards that were most important in their region. The UBC focused on
requirements for seismic hazard, and was the model code adopted in the
Western United States, Alaska, and Hawaii. Seismic requirements for
nonstructural components have been included in the UBC for over 70 years.
In 1972, the American National Standards Institute (ANSI) published ANSI

A58.1-1972, Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and Other Structures.
The basis of seismic requirements for nonstructural components contained in
ANSI A58.1-1972 was the 1970 UBC. In 1982, ANSI A58.1 was updated
on the basis of seismic requirements contained in the 1979 UBC. In 1973,
SBCCI and BOCA adopted ANSI 58.1-1972 by reference, and in 1985, both
adopted ANSI A58.1-1982. As a result, seismic requirements in the United
States prior to 1993 were based on the Uniform Building Code (although the
versions were not the same everywhere).
ATC-69 4: Code Requirements for Nonstructural 4-1

Components and Contents
In 1993, BOCA adopted seismic requirements based on the 1991 edition of
the NEHRP Recommended Provisions for the Development of Seismic
Regulations for New Buildings (BSSC, 1991), and SBCCI did the same in
1994. In 1996, BOCA referenced ASCE 7-95 Minimum Design Loads for
Buildings and Other Structures (ASCE, 1996), and SBCCI did so in 1997.
The seismic requirements in ASCE 7-95 were based on the 1994 NEHRP
Recommended Provisions (BSSC, 1994).
In the mid-1990s, the three model code organizations formed the

International Code Council (ICC) to develop one model code for use
throughout the United States. This code was to be called the International
Building Code (IBC), and was scheduled for initial publication in 2000. The
seismic requirements for the IBC were to be based primarily on the 1997
NEHRP Recommended Provisions (BSSC, 1997).
In anticipation of what would be the 2000 IBC, a substantial revision of the

seismic requirements was included in the publication of the 1997 UBC. For
nonstructural components specifically, seismic requirements were a blend of
requirements found in the 1994 NEHRP Recommended Provisions, and what
was anticipated for the 1997 NEHRP Recommended Provisions.
Following publication of the IBC in 2000, local jurisdictions gradually began

phasing out the BOCA, SBCCI, and UBC documents. In 2006, the IBC fully
referenced ASCE/SEI 7-05 Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and Other
Structures (ASCE, 2006) for its seismic requirements, which are based on the
2003 NEHRP Recommended Provisions (BSSC, 2004). Thus, the key
resource documents for seismic design in the United States have been the
Uniform Building Code, the NEHRP Recommended Provisions, the
International Building Code, and ASCE/SEI 7.
The following chronology of seismic requirements for nonstructural

components is taken from selected editions of the UBC and IBC model
codes. It summarizes the historic foundation from which current model code
provisions have evolved. This discussion is focused on model codes in the
United States. Appendix B, Table B-1, lists U.S. codes, along with selected
codes in use in other countries, which contain seismic provisions for
1937 UBC, Section 2312: The formula for lateral force on elements
of structures and nonstructural components was
F = CW
4-2 4: Code Requirements for Nonstructural ATC-69

where C was a coefficient equal to 0.05 for walls, towers and tanks,
and 0.25 for exterior and interior ornamentation and appendages, and
W was the weight of the component under consideration.
1961 UBC, Section 2312: The formula for lateral force on elements
of structures and nonstructural components was
Fp = ZCpWp
where, in the highest seismic zone (Zone 3) Z was equal to 1, Cp was

a coefficient with a typical tabulated value of 0.2, and Wp was the
weight of the component under consideration. Thus, the design force
for the seismic restraint of a nonstructural component in a high
seismic zone was 20 percent of its weight.
1976 UBC Section 2312(g): The formula for lateral force on

elements of structures and rigid nonstructural components was
Fp = ZICpWp
where, in the highest zone (Zone 4) Z was equal to 1, Cp was 0.3 for
most rigid items, and the value of the importance factor, I, ranged
from 1.0 to 1.5. Thus, the design force the seismic restraint of a
nonstructural component, in a typical building, in a high seismic
zone, was 30 percent of its weight.
1988 UBC Section 2312(g): The formula for lateral force on

elements of structures and nonstructural components was
Fp = ZICpWp
where, in the highest zone (Zone 4) Z was equal to 0.4, Cp was 0.75
for most rigid items and 1.5 for most nonrigid items, and the value of
I ranged from 1.0 to 1.25. Thus, the design force the seismic restraint
of a nonstructural component, in typical building, in a high seismic
zone, remained at 30 percent of its weight. Explicit requirements for
the dynamic response of nonrigid items was addressed through the
increased Cp factor, and a 2/3 factor could be applied to reduce the
design force for items supported at grade.
1994 UBC Section 2312(g): The 1994 UBC formula was similar to
the 1998 UBC formula, although the maximum value of the
importance factor, I, was returned to 1.5, as in earlier editions of the
code.

Despite the presence of seismic requirements for nonstructural components
in model codes since 1937, the practice of designing for the seismic restraint
of nonstructural components has evolved slowly over time. First, there has
been a lag between the creation of a model code provisions and adoption by
local jurisdictions. Second, after adoption by a local jurisdiction,
implementation of nonstructural code provisions has taken many years to
become common practice. Code provisions for the design of cladding,
parapet walls, and earthquake bracing of overhead sprinkler piping were
among the first nonstructural provisions to be widely implemented.
Enforcement and implementation of code requirements for other
nonstructural components and contents have been increasing with time.
The 1989 Loma Prieta Earthquake caused an unprecedented amount of

nonstructural damage, but the adequacy of the model code provisions for
nonstructural components was not seriously challenged until after the 1994
Northridge Earthquake. The Northridge Earthquake caused closure of the
newly reconstructed Olive View Hospital. Maximum accelerations of 0.82g
at the base and 1.7g at the roof were recorded, yet the structural system
performed without significant damage. Compromised fire sprinkler and
chilled water piping, however, led to evacuation of the building. Additional
nonstructural damage to electrical and mechanical equipment was
documented.
Focused efforts by concerned structural engineers led to the revised model

code provisions contained in the 1997 edition of the UBC. Notably, the
formula for lateral force on elements of structures and nonstructural
components was refined to reflect amplification of seismic forces over the
height of a building.
1997 UBC Section 1632: The formula for lateral force on elements
of structures and nonstructural components is
a pCa I p (1 + 3hx / hr )
Fp = Wp
Rp
where ap is a component amplification factor ranging up to 2.5, but

typically equal to1.0 for rigid items; Ca is a seismic coefficient
related to soil profile and seismic zone, with a value up to 0.88 on
soft soil sites in the near-field, and equal to 0.4 for competent soil
sites in areas of high seismicity outside near field; Ip is unchanged
from previous codes; and Rp is a component response modification
factor ranging from 1.5 to 4.0, with a typical value of 3.0 assigned to
most ductile components and attachments. Maximum and minimum

limits on design force are also provided. Thus, for a typical rigid
component, in an area of high seismicity, outside the near-field, the
design force remained at approximately 30 percent of its weight
when located at the base of the building, and increased to 60 percent
of its weight when located at the roof. For a flexible component
located at the roof, the design force would be 180 percent of its
weight. Unlike in prior editions of the code, these forces are
“strength” level rather than “allowable” level forces. Allowable
level forces can be obtained by dividing strength level forces by 1.4.
The 1997 UBC also contained language excluding specific items

from the requirements for explicit seismic design. According to this
edition of the code, the attachments of the following items did not
need to be detailed on construction plans: floor-mounted components
under 400 pounds; vibration-isolated equipment weighing less than
20 pounds; wall-mounted or suspended equipment weighing less
than 20 pounds; and furniture.
In essential and hazardous buildings, the 1997 UBC also required

consideration of the effects of relative motion of the points of
attachment to the structure using maximum calculated estimates of
drift.
2006 IBC (ASCE/SEI 7-05 Section 13.1): ASCE/SEI 7-05 is

adopted by reference in the 2006 IBC. It contains design
requirements for both force- and displacement-controlled
nonstructural components. The formula for lateral force on elements
of structures and nonstructural components is
0.4 a p SDS (1 + 2 z / h )
Fp = Wp
( Rp / I p )
where ap is unchanged from the previous editions of the UBC; SDS is
the spectral acceleration at short periods; Rp is a component
modification factor that varies from 1 to 12; Ip is a component
importance factor (rather than a building importance factor as in
previous editions of the UBC), and is equal to 1.0 for typical
components, or 1.5 if a component must remain operational after an
earthquake or contains hazardous materials; z is the height in the
structure at the point of attachment; and h is the height of the roof.
Maximum and minimum limits on design forces are very similar to
those found in the 1997 UBC.

The formula for lateral displacement on nonstructural components is
Dp = δxA – δyA.
where δxA and δyA are the deflections of a building at levels x and y
determined on the basis of an elastic analysis.
Tables of design coefficients ap and Rp have been expanded to more

thoroughly address the scope of architectural, mechanical and
electrical components encountered. The following items are
specifically exempt from the ASCE/SEI 7-05 seismic design
requirements for nonstructural components:
1. Most components in Seismic Design Categories B and C
(i.e., normal occupancies in areas of moderate seismicity).
2. Mechanical and electrical components in Seismic Design
Categories D, E and F, where Ip is equal to 1, and both of the
following conditions apply:
a. flexible connections between the components and
associated ductwork, piping and conduit are
provided, and
b. components are mounted at 4 feet or less above a
floor level and weigh 400 pounds or less.
3. Mechanical and electrical components in Seismic Design
Categories D, E and F, where Ip is equal to 1, and both of the
following conditions apply:
a. flexible connections between the components and
associated ductwork, piping and conduit are
provided; and
b. the components weigh 20 pounds or less or, for
distribution systems, weigh 5 pounds per foot or
less.
Earlier provisions related to nonstructural components in the 2000 and 2003

IBC were concerned primarily with position retention, i.e., preventing
components from becoming dislodged or overturned during an earthquake.
ASCE/SEI 7-05 contains additional provisions related to post earthquake
functionality that are applicable to components with hazardous contents and
equipment that is required to remain operational following an earthquake.
For such components, certification based on approved shake table testing or
experience data must be submitted to the authority having jurisdiction.

4.2 Enforcement of Code Requirements
The effectiveness of model code requirements governing seismic design of

nonstructural components depends on technically sound code provisions,
proper application by designers, and code enforcement. Proper enforcement
requires both comprehensive plan review and thorough construction
inspection.
4.2.1 Plan Review
Comprehensive plan review includes: (1) a determination of which items

require seismic design; and (2) examination of the details for compliance
with code requirements. Determining which items require seismic bracing
involves a review of the construction drawings and specifications for each
discipline (e.g., architectural, electrical, mechanical, plumbing and other
specialties). Few jurisdictions, if any, have resources devoted to such a
comprehensive review of construction documents, and few jurisdictions have
reviewers qualified to comprehensively evaluate compliance with all
nonstructural code requirements.
An additional challenge in plan review arises from the many items that are
commonly excluded from the construction drawings, but are identified in the
project specifications to be procured from the contractor on a “design-build”
basis. Unless these items are carefully tracked and submitted for review,
building department plan review can be nonexistent. Few jurisdictions have
mechanisms in place to track and support ongoing review of nonstructural
seismic bracing designs developed during construction.
4.2.2 Construction Inspection
Enforcement of nonstructural seismic requirements is particularly lacking in

the construction inspection process. Since details associated with seismic
restraint of nonstructural components are not often shown on approved
drawings, inspectors are left without the tools necessary to evaluate the
adequacy of as-built installations. Historically, building inspectors have not
been systematically trained to inspect the seismic restraint of nonstructural
components, and few inspectors have sufficient experience to field review
seismic restraints of nonstructural components that are not covered by a well-
known standard.
Many design professionals have the necessary training and experience to

evaluate the adequacy of nonstructural seismic restraints, however, field
observation of nonstructural component installations is often not included in

their scope of work. As a result, it is not uncommon for nonstructural
components to be installed without inspection.
The 2006 IBC contains requirements for special inspection of designated

seismic systems. For most buildings, a written statement of special
inspection must be prepared by a registered design professional. In buildings
assigned to Seismic Design Categories C, D, E or F, the statement of special
inspection must include seismic requirements for selected HVAC
components, piping systems and electrical equipment. These code
requirements are expected to increase the construction oversight of
nonstructural installations, and ultimately improve the seismic performance
of nonstructural components.
4.3 Other Standards and Protocols
Many of the challenges related to design, plan review, and construction

inspection are resolved when installation in accordance with nationally
accepted standards becomes a construction standard of practice. For
example, the IBC accepts seismic restraint of fire protection systems
designed in accordance with National Fire Protection Association, NFPA 13:
Standard for the Installation of Sprinkler Systems. As a result, verification of
NPFA 13 compliance is a common occurrence in the field. Similar examples
exist for other major nonstructural components. Installation of suspended
ceilings in accordance with ASTM C635, ASTM C636 and the Guidelines
for Seismic Restraint for Direct-hung Suspended Ceiling Assemblies
(CISCA, 2004) is included in the IBC by reference. Selected additional
industry standards are listed in Appendix B, Table B-1.
Qualification testing is an acceptable alternative to the analytical

requirements of the code. The IBC accepts seismic qualification by testing
based on nationally recognized testing procedures, such as the International
Code Council Evaluation Service, ICC-ES AC 156 Acceptance Criteria for
Seismic Qualification by Shake-Table Testing of Nonstructural Components
and Systems. Selected additional testing protocols are listed in Appendix B,
Table B-1.
4.4 Requirements for Nonstructural Components in

Existing Buildings
Modifications to existing buildings can trigger code requirements to improve

the seismic restraint of existing nonstructural components. Such triggers
include additions to existing buildings, changes in use, or alterations of a
specified magnitude in terms of affected area or construction cost. For
example, some jurisdictions require suspended ceilings to be brought into

compliance with current seismic bracing requirements if modifications to the
ceiling exceed a specified percentage of the ceiling area. In most cases,
however, significant building improvements can be made without triggering
improved seismic protection of existing nonstructural components.
A challenge associated with existing buildings is that new nonstructural

components are regularly installed over the life of a building. This includes
new furnishings, storage racks and specialty equipment, the replacement of
aging equipment, installation of new piping, and updating of architectural
components. Often these modifications fall outside the jurisdiction of the
code, or are made without the benefit of a building permit. As a result,
seismic protection of newly installed items becomes the responsibility of the
installer, often without any oversight to ensure that adequate seismic
protective measures are provided. Improper installations, such as piping
installed across seismic joints without flexible connections, can easily occur
and are highly vulnerable to damage in future earthquakes.
Another challenge associated with existing buildings is that seismic restraints

included as part of an initial installation can be removed or compromised
over time. This is commonly observed in items that are relocated during use,
or require movement for servicing. Oversight is needed to ensure continued
effectiveness of seismic protection measures for such components.
Chapter 34 of the 2006 International Building Code (ICC, 2006a), and the
2006 International Existing Building Code (ICC, 2006b) contain
requirements for existing buildings. Systematic approaches to addressing the
seismic restraint of nonstructural components and systems in existing
buildings is also covered in several recently developed national standards.
Among these are SEI/ASCE 31-03 Seismic Evaluation of Existing Buildings,
and ASCE/SEI 41-06 Seismic Rehabilitation of Existing Buildings.
Additional standards are listed in Appendix B, Table B-1.
4.5 Requirements for Contents
Building contents (e.g., furniture, movable partitions, and storage shelving)

are typically considered separate from the building and are usually the
responsibility of the building occupant. Many such items are specifically
exempted from seismic provisions in model building codes (e.g., furniture,
equipment weighing less than 400 pounds, and suspended items weighing
less than 20 pounds). Regulated by the code or not, contents can pose an
additional risk to safety and continuity of operations after an earthquake.
The seismic protection of contents is dependent upon an understanding of
potential seismic risk followed by action to mitigate that risk on the part of

business owners, homeowners, and tenants. Building code provisions,
guidance documents, or other resources listed in Appendix B can be
effectively applied to the design and installation of seismic protection
measures for building contents.
4.6 Validation and Refinement of Code Requirements

for Nonstructural Components
Seismic design requirements for structural systems have evolved over time as
a result of documented earthquake performance and laboratory testing.
Seismic design requirements for nonstructural components have also evolved
over time; however, comprehensive evaluation of these requirements, either
by testing or through post-earthquake observations, has been limited. Future
earthquakes might be able to provide the information necessary to validate or
refine current design requirements, but comprehensive and systematic post-
earthquake documentation of nonstructural performance is needed.
Obstacles to gathering such perishable data will need to be overcome before
a quantitative review of nonstructural seismic design requirements can
become possible.

Chapter 5
Current Practice for Seismic
Design and Installation of
in the United States
5.1 General
In current U.S. practice, limited attention is given to design and installation

of seismically resistant nonstructural components. Exceptions include: (1)
facilities such as hospitals, emergency operations centers, fire and police
stations, located in areas of high seismicity and subject to strict state or
federal regulations on post-earthquake operability; (2) California public
schools; and (3) buildings with unusually valuable, hazardous, or essential
contents such as museums, laboratories, or critical manufacturing facilities.
The manner in which seismic protection of nonstructural components is

addressed varies widely from project to project. Even for similar projects,
built in accordance with the same building code in the same seismic setting,
approaches to design and installation of nonstructural components can range
from comprehensive to incomplete. The range and scope of approaches is as
varied as those that share responsibility for seismic protection. Responsible
parties include: (1) owners; (2) design professionals including architects,
mechanical engineers, electrical engineers, structural engineers and other
specialty engineers who may be specifying equipment on a project; (3)
general contractors; (4) subcontractors including plumbing subcontractors,
mechanical subcontractors, electrical subcontractors, and the range of
subcontractors associated with ceilings, interior partitions and exterior
cladding; (5) material and equipment suppliers; (6) plan reviewers; and (7)
construction inspectors. Each has a role to play in ensuring that important
nonstructural components within a project are adequately protected. The
action or inaction of any one responsible party can mean the difference
between post-earthquake operability and the need to evacuate; or between
protection of life safety and possible loss of life.
To date, the insurance industry and lending institutions have had a small to
modest impact on the seismic design and installation of nonstructural
components. The role that these institutions will eventually play in
ATC-69 5: Current Practice for Seismic Design and Installation of 5-1

Nonstructural Components in the United States
influencing seismic protection of nonstructural components is expected to
increase when significant nonstructural losses are realized in future
earthquakes.
5.2 Examples of Nonstructural Seismic Design

Practice
Architects, engineers, building officials, equipment manufacturers, and

contractors practicing in seismically active regions across the United States
were interviewed to identify the “state of practice” related to the seismic
protection of nonstructural components. Examples of nonstructural seismic
design and installation practice are provided in the following sections.
5.2.1 Standard Occupancy Construction
Most design professionals in seismically active areas address the seismic

protection of nonstructural components in standard occupancy buildings
using a combination of standard details and performance specifications. In
most areas outside of California and the Pacific Northwest, little or no
specific attention is paid to the seismic protection of nonstructural
components, other than fire sprinkler piping.
Seismic restraint of ceilings, partitions and other architectural items are often
detailed on the architectural drawings. Anchorage of heavy floor-mounted or
suspended equipment is shown on the drawings, or the specifications require
the contractor to develop and install seismic restraint details on a “design-
build” basis. Details on the drawings are prepared either by the specifying
discipline or by the Structural Engineer of Record. Details and calculations
prepared by an engineer hired by the contractor are sometimes part of a
submittal process in which the Structural Engineer of Record will examine
the details for conformance with the specified design requirements and for
the loads imposed on the structure. In many cases, especially outside of
California, the installation of nonstructural components is completed without
the benefit of a submittal review or any project-specific engineering.
The details of nonstructural distribution systems are rarely included on the

drawings. Rather, design-build requirements are typically included in the
specifications. These requirements mandate compliance with referenced
code provisions and standards for nonstructural components. In addition,
they often require installation to be performed in accordance with one of
several proprietary seismic restraint systems. In the case of fire sprinkler
systems, compliance with NFPA requirements is uniformly mandated.
5-2 5: Current Practice for Seismic Design and Installation of ATC-69

Rarely are nonstructural installations in standard occupancy buildings subject
to comprehensive field review. While some building inspectors routinely
check for the presence of code-required bracing for suspended ceilings and
partitions, few inspect the anchorage of equipment, and even fewer examine
the seismic bracing on piping and conduit. Inspection of fire sprinkler piping
is typically handled by the fire marshal. Building contents, even those within
the scope of the code, are often added to a building after inspections are
complete and beneficial occupancy has been granted. Rarely are these items
subject to inspection by a regulatory body.
It is also uncommon for design professionals to take responsibility for field

verification of seismic bracing for nonstructural components. Structural
Engineers are not typically on the jobsite during the phase of construction in
which most nonstructural components are installed. If they are on site, most
have explicitly excluded the design and oversight of nonstructural bracing
from their contract. Architects, mechanical engineers and electrical
engineers are generally not focused on this aspect of design, nor are they
assigned the responsibility, and most do not have the requisite training to
inspect for compliance with seismic requirements. As a result, responsibility
for the restraint of nonstructural component often falls to the subcontractor
responsible for the system or component installation.
5.2.2 California Hospital Construction
California hospitals provide one example of how a comprehensive and

coordinated approach to design, plan review, and construction can be
implemented. The California Office of Statewide Health Planning and
Development (OSHPD) enforces building code provisions related to the
anchorage of nonstructural components in California hospitals. Since 1973,
OSHPD has been instrumental in improving the safety and reliability of
hospital buildings. The initial focus of OSHPD’s regulatory oversight was
related to structural quality. Over time this focus has shifted to include
comprehensive treatment of both structural and nonstructural performance.
Protection of nonstructural components in hospitals is based on a three-

pronged approach: (1) clear and complete designs; (2) detailed plan review;
and (3) thorough construction inspection. OSHPD requires details and
calculations for all floor-mounted items over 400 pounds and for wall-
mounted, suspended or vibration-isolated items over 20 pounds. The
completeness and code compliance of the designs are reviewed by licensed
Structural Engineers. All outstanding design issues are resolved during a
backcheck process prior to issuance of a building permit. During
construction, all installations are inspected by qualified inspectors, and post-

installed concrete anchors are tested by independent testing laboratories.
Deviations from the plans are monitored through a rigorous change order
process requiring justification by the Structural Engineer of Record and
acceptance by OSHPD. Similar standards are used for both new construction
and renovation projects.
Portions of existing hospital buildings constructed prior to the rigorous

enforcement of nonstructural standards have been the subject of recent
attention. Since the passage of Senate Bill 1953 in 1994, California hospitals
have been required to progressively improve their expected nonstructural
performance by specific deadlines. By 2002, hospitals were required to
anchor and brace communications systems, emergency power equipment,
bulk medical gas, and fire alarm components. By 2013, architectural
components, medical equipment, and mechanical, electrical and plumbing
systems, including fire sprinkler bracing lines, must be anchored in critical
care areas. By 2030, nonstructural components throughout the hospital must
be anchored. These requirements, along with complementary structural
upgrade requirements, are designed to increase the probability that hospitals
will be able to provide uninterrupted service following major earthquakes.
Hospitals that fail to comply with these requirements are subject to loss of
their acute care license.
5.2.3 Private Sector Technology Construction
In certain building types, such as high technology fabrication facilities,

research laboratories, and museums, the contents can be far more valuable
than the building. In some circumstances, they can represent a potential
hazard to building occupants and the general public. In these cases, special
attention is required throughout design, manufacturing and construction, to
ensure that critical components are protected.
One company’s approach to the seismic protection of nonstructural

components highlights several seismic hazard mitigation strategies. Intel, a
large private sector semiconductor company, spent $6 billion on capital
construction projects in 2006. Of that capital budget, about 5% was
attributed to the cost of the building structure. The balance was attributed to
the contents, equipment, process tools, and systems needed for specialized
manufacturing processes.
Intel’s basic approach to limiting nonstructural earthquake damage is to “do

it right the first time.” To this end, Intel’s design and construction protocols
include: (1) hiring integrated architectural/engineering teams expressly
responsible for the design and construction oversight of seismic protection

measures for nonstructural components and systems; (2) enforcing company-
specific seismic standards that include a requirement to use an importance
factor of 1.5 for the design of all seismic restraints for critical production
facilities; (3) pre-engineering of support and bracing systems rather than
having systems “field-engineered”; and (4) arranging for full-time, on-site
inspectors from jurisdictions having authority over their construction
projects.
5.2.4 Local Government Enforcement
When the 2003 IBC was adopted in St. Louis County, Missouri, enforcement
of seismic requirements for nonstructural components was problematic.
Design professionals, plan reviewers, contractors and building inspectors
each had varying interpretations of the requirements. In response, the
County established rules and regulations intended to establish a common set
of standards for compliance with the code. A cornerstone of these standards
is the use of a “Seismic Code Block” on the mechanical, electrical and
plumbing drawings (Figure 5-1 and Figure 5-2).
Figure 5-1 St. Louis County Seismic Code Block, Attachment A.

Figure 5-2 St. Louis County Seismic Code Block, Attachment B.
The Seismic Code Block requires the engineer(s) responsible for the design
of mechanical, electrical and plumbing systems to identify the location of
seismic restraint details on the plans, or to indicate that they will be furnished
in a subsequent submittal, which will then be reviewed by the responsible
engineer. This process forces accountability for design, and significantly
enhances the enforcement of code requirements for seismic bracing of
nonstructural components and systems. Installation inspection is facilitated
by the availability of project-specific bracing details.
The Seismic Code Block approach also focuses the attention of the owner
and the design team on the division of responsibilities pertaining to
nonstructural components, and leads to greater coordination between
disciplines. The St. Louis County approach can serve as a model for other
jurisdictions throughout the country.

5.3 Equipment Specification
In standard occupancy construction, design of equipment anchorage, if

provided, has focused on position retention and compliance with prescriptive
seismic lateral force requirements. The performance of the equipment itself
under seismic loading is another issue. Since equipment can become
inoperable due to earthquake shaking even if it remains in place, buildings
designed with the objective of functioning after an earthquake must consider
the post-earthquake operability of critical equipment. Performance
verification of equipment that must remain operational after an earthquake is
obtained through qualification testing.
Manufacturers and vendors that provide equipment used in the nuclear

industry have long been required to provide seismic performance
qualification data for their equipment. Other occupancies for which
seismically qualified equipment has been used include hospitals, schools,
data centers, water treatment facilities, police stations, airport terminals,
casinos, industrial facilities, and government buildings.
Some demand for seismically qualified equipment has come from the East
Coast, and the Midwest near the New Madrid fault, in areas where the IBC
has been adopted. To date, specification of mechanical, electrical and
plumbing equipment qualified for seismic environments has been estimated
at less than 5% of the total equipment specified in the United States. The
eventual adoption of the 2006 IBC in the high seismic regions of California
and the Pacific Northwest is expected to dramatically increase demand, since
“special certification” of designated equipment is required for systems in
Seismic Design Categories C, D, E and F.
Seismic qualification requirements in the IBC, coupled with the availability

of a shake table testing protocol, ICC-ES AC 156 Acceptance Criteria for
Seismic Qualification by Shake-Table Testing of Nonstructural Components
and Systems, has hastened the pace with which some manufacturers are
qualifying the internal ruggedness of their equipment using shake table
testing. While the cost of seismic qualification varies depending on many
factors, the actual cost premium for seismically qualified equipment is often
incidental. One estimate suggests the premium for seismically qualified
equipment is on the order of about 1% of the cost of the equipment, or a
minimum of about $8000 to $10,000 if the component has not previously
been tested. In some cases the test can be “generic” with the effective cost
spread over an entire product line.

5.4 Structural System Selection
The structural system of the building can influence seismic performance of

nonstructural components and contents. Nonstructural earthquake damage is
caused by inter-story drift, floor-acceleration, or both, and these quantities
depend on the structural response of the building.
Structural systems that respond with reduced spectral floor accelerations and
reduced inter-story drifts are most effective in achieving enhanced seismic
performance. Unfortunately, obtaining reductions in both structural response
quantities at the same time is difficult using conventional structural systems.
A study comparing the seismic performance of nonstructural components in
various building types (Mayes et al., 2005) showed that base isolated
buildings had the best performance by a significant margin, and that systems
with viscous dampers performed considerably better than braced frames and
moment frames. For this reason, base isolation systems have been used in
many buildings where post-earthquake occupancy and protection of contents
were of paramount importance.
The ATC 58 Project, “Development of Next-Generation Performance-based

Seismic Design Procedures for New and Existing Buildings,” has among its
goals the quantification of earthquake losses in terms of casualties, repair
costs and downtime. The project includes comprehensive treatment of
nonstructural components and contents, providing the ability to explicitly
compare nonstructural performance for different structural systems. Such
comparisons are expected to clarify the relationship between structural
system selection and nonstructural performance, and provide valuable
guidance on system selection to achieve desired performance objectives.

Chapter 6
Guidance Documents Relevant to
Seismic Design and Installation
of Nonstructural Components
In addition to codes, standards and protocols, there are a number of

evaluation, design, and installation guidance documents relevant to
improving nonstructural seismic design and installation practice. Many have
been developed with funding from federal agencies, such as the Federal
Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) and the Department of Interior
Bureau of Reclamation. Guidance has also been developed by engineering
research organizations such as the Applied Technology Council (ATC), and
professional or trade groups such as the Sheet Metal and Air Conditioning
National Association (SMACNA), the American Society of Heating,
Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers, Inc. (ASHRAE), the
Vibration Isolation and Seismic Control Manufacturers Association
(VISCMA) and the Rack Manufacturer’s Institute, Inc. (RMI).
Available guidelines contain useful information and sample details targeting

different audiences. Some address new facilities, while others address the
evaluation and upgrade of existing facilities. Many cover building seismic
issues in general, but have at least one chapter or section pertaining to
nonstructural seismic design in particular. When compared side by side,
there appears to be a high degree of overlap and redundancy, but each seems
to serve a specific need.
A list of currently available guidance documents, including some still under

development, is provided in Appendix B, Table B-2. These documents can
be grouped into categories, and summarized as follows:
• General discussions of nonstructural issues intended for lay audiences
including homeowners, building owners, facilities managers, and tenants.
Examples include the 1983 edition, and the 1985 and 1994 FEMA-
published editions of FEMA 74, Reducing the Risks of Nonstructural
Earthquake Damage: A Practical Guide, Third Edition.
• General guidelines intended for lay audiences, but targeted to a particular
type of facility such as schools, hospitals, commercial office buildings,
multifamily residential buildings, retail facilities, hotels and motels.
ATC-69 6: Guidance Documents Relevant to Seismic Design 6-1

and Installation of Nonstructural Components
Examples include the FEMA Incremental Seismic Rehabilitation Series
(FEMA 395, 396, 397, 398, 399, and 400), which are intended for the
owners, managers, and administrators of these facilities. Nonstructural
issues are not the primary focus of these guides, but they each include a
section that addresses nonstructural issues relevant to the facility in
question.
• General guidelines intended for design professionals that explain seismic
design issues explicitly, but without the technical detail required to
perform any calculations. FEMA 454, Designing for Earthquakes: A
Manual for Architects is an example of this type of guide, and includes a
chapter on nonstructural issues.
• Technical guidelines intended for design professionals that provide
seismic design, evaluation, or rehabilitation requirements for both new
and existing buildings. Some of these guides are prestandards that have
been used in the development of seismic evaluation and rehabilitation
standards. Most of these are not specifically related to nonstructural
seismic design, but include chapters or sections covering nonstructural
issues. Examples include the FEMA 310 Handbook for the Seismic
Evaluation of Buildings - A Prestandard (the precursor to SEI/ASCE
31-03), FEMA 356 Prestandard and Commentary for the Seismic
Rehabilitation of Buildings (the precursor to ASCE /SEI 41-06), and
FEMA 547 Techniques for the Seismic Rehabilitation of Existing
Buildings. In addition, there are a few guides that provide step-by-step
explanations of the code provisions for nonstructural items, including the
U.S. Army Corp of Engineers document, Seismic Protection for
Mechanical Equipment.
• Detailed guidelines for builders and equipment installers that provide
information regarding hardware, tools, and equipment that could be used
to install generic anchorage details. These guides are specifically
focused on nonstructural components. Examples include FEMA 412
Installing Seismic Restraints for Mechanical Equipment, FEMA 413
Installing Seismic Restraints for Electrical Equipment, FEMA 414
Installing Seismic Restraints for Duct and Pipe, FEMA 460 Seismic
Considerations for Steel Storage Racks Located in Areas Accessible to
the Public, and the Department of Interior Seismic Safety Program
(DOISSP) Nonstructural Hazards Mitigation Guidelines, Volumes
1 and 2.
6-2 6: Guidance Documents Relevant to Seismic Design ATC-69

and Installation of Nonstructural Components
Chapter 7
Nonproprietary Details and Other
Resources for Nonstructural
Components
A number of available resources provide generic details that address a wide

variety of nonstructural components and contents. These include many of
the guidance documents listed in Appendix B, Table B-2. A list of resources
that contain nonproprietary and generically applicable nonstructural
anchorage and restraint details is provided in Appendix B, Table B-3.
Most nonproprietary details are intended to provide general information on

typical assemblies, typical hardware, and typical connections between
nonstructural components and the supporting structure. Schematic in nature,
they generally do not include specific member sizes, dimensions, capacities,
or load ratings. While some can be readily implemented in the field, others
require the input of a design professional or specialty subcontractor familiar
with the type of installation.
The 1994 edition of FEMA 74 includes many such generic, nonproprietary

details, showing typical connections and hardware needed to protect ordinary
furniture, equipment, and contents that would be typical of residential and
small business occupancies. The details are classified as “Do-It-Yourself” or
“Engineering Required.” With some ingenuity and modest skills, many
could adapt these details for home or small business use. For any large
public agency or commercial enterprise with significant exposure to
casualties, direct economic losses, or downtime associated with nonstructural
earthquake damage, reliance on the generic details in FEMA 74 would not be
recommended.
Resources such as FEMA 412 Installing Seismic Restraints for Mechanical

Equipment, FEMA 413 Installing Seismic Restraints for Electrical
Equipment, and FEMA 414 Installing Seismic Restraints for Duct and Pipe
provide details for mechanical, electrical, and plumbing components that
would be more typical of commercial occupancies. These guides are
intended as aids for installers, presumably after connections have been
designed or specified by design professionals or others.
ATC-69 7: Nonproprietary Details and Other Resources 7-1

Also included in Appendix B, Table B-3 are other resources such as
checklists, sample specifications, and photographs pertaining to nonstructural
seismic design and installation, which could be useful resources in the future
update of FEMA 74.
7-2 7: Nonproprietary Details and Other Resources ATC-69

Chapter 8
Proprietary Details and
Products for the Protection of
Proprietary details, devices and systems used for the protection of

nonstructural components and contents are becoming more readily available.
Internet search phrases such as “seismic details,” “seismic protection,”
“seismic safety products,” “equipment base isolation,” “seismic restraints,”
“OSHPD details,” “earthquake bracing,” “seismic fragility,” “seismic
dampers,” “nonstructural seismic,” and “nonstructural retrofit” identify
countless resources. Some specialize in a particular market niche, while
others offer a range of products; however, there does not appear to be any
one resource that addresses the entire spectrum of nonstructural components.
Currently, there are many vendors offering specialized devices and pre-
approved details that have been evaluated for compliance with the IBC or
have been accepted by authorities such as the California Office of Statewide
Health Planning and Development (OSHPD).
A sampling of proprietary products and vendors is listed in Appendix B,

Table B-4. The purpose of this sampling is to indicate that there are now
many such products available, and many of them can be readily located on
the internet. No attempt has been made to comprehensively list all vendors
or proprietary products that are currently available, and identification in this
report does not constitute an endorsement of a particular vendor or approval
of a particular product.
Mason Industries (www.mason-ind.com) offers information about hundreds

of products for use with MEP equipment, piping and ducts, and includes
engineering specifications, data submittal sheets in pdf format, CAD details,
load ratings, product selection charts, technical data, and installation notes.
Although it appears that Mason’s primary focus is on providing noise and
vibration control products, they have many products designed specifically for
seismic environments.
International Seismic Application Technology (www.isatsb.com) provides

hardware for seismic bracing of mechanical, electrical, plumbing, and piping
systems. Their manual, International Seismic Application Technology
(ISAT) Applications and Design Manual, is provided free upon request, but
ATC-69 8: Proprietary Details and Products for the 8-1

Protection of Nonstructural Components
not visible online. Their website states that in addition to seismic bracing
hardware that they manufacture and sell, they offer consulting services,
educational seminars, budget estimates, specification review, value
engineering, and installation oversight.
WorkSafe Technologies (www.worksafetech.com) focuses primarily on

protection of contents typically found in office, data center, hospital,
laboratory, and warehouse occupancies. Their website is organized by
occupancy, with further subdivisions for specific contents found in each
setting. As an example, under “Offices/Desktop Equipment,” the following
proprietary products are listed: Monitor LassoTM, Small Monitor
SwivelStrapsTM, Large Monitor SwivelStrapsTM, QuakeMatTM, and
SeismaLokTM. A major product line for data centers includes Iso-BaseTM base-
isolation devices for sensitive equipment, which are analogous to base-
isolation devices used for buildings. Although load ratings and engineering
data are not provided on the website, they state that WorkSafe products have
been tested successfully in accordance with the Canadian Government
Standards Testing at the University of British Columbia and have received
Japan Quality Assurance (JQA) Certification for use in Japan. WorkSafe has
offices in the United States, Canada, Japan, Mexico, New Zealand,
Philippines, Taiwan, and Turkey, indicating that there is an international
market for these products.
For architectural components, proprietary products are less common and

more difficult to find. While there seems to be many different specialty
products, there does not appear to be a vendor that specializes in seismic
bracing for a wide variety of architectural components. The phrases “veneer
anchor,” “glazing seismic,” and “partition bracing” can be used to locate
resources, but generic phrases like “nonstructural seismic” or “architectural
seismic” do not lead to useful results. The phrase “seismic ceilings” led to a
“Seismic Ceiling Resource Center” on United States Gypsum (USG) website,
but did not lead to Armstrong, a firm known to have recently performed
seismic tests on their proprietary ceiling systems.
Widespread adoption of the 2006 International Building Code, and ongoing

developments in performance-based earthquake engineering, are expected to
stimulate the development of additional proprietary products and new
vendors as more stringent code requirements are adopted and enforced, and
there is greater awareness of the costs and disruption associated with
nonstructural earthquake damage.
8-2 8: Proprietary Details and Products for the ATC-69

Protection of Nonstructural Components
Chapter 9
Recent and Ongoing
Research and Development
on Nonstructural Issues
9.1 General
Research and development efforts on the seismic performance of

nonstructural components and contents can be grouped into the following
categories:
• Federally funded projects undertaken by organizations such as the
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), National Science
Foundation (NSF), and the Applied Technology Council (ATC)
• Research undertaken at the national earthquake engineering research
centers, including the Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center
(PEER), Multidisciplinary Center for Earthquake Engineering Research
(MCEER), and Mid-America Earthquake Center (MAE)
• Private sector research in the United States
• International research
Recent and ongoing research and development efforts, and reports on recent
testing of nonstructural components, are listed in Appendix B, Table B-5.
9.2 Federally Funded Projects and Initiatives
9.2.1 NSF-Funded ATC-29 Project
A significant body of information on seismic design, performance, and

research pertaining to nonstructural components is contained in the series of
reports from the ATC-29 Project, funded by the National Center for
Earthquake Engineering Research and the National Science Foundation:
• ATC-29, Seismic Design and Performance of Equipment and
Nonstructural Elements in Buildings and Industrial Structures
(ATC, 1992)
• ATC-29-1, Seismic Design, Retrofit, and Performance of Nonstructural
Components (ATC, 1998), and most recently
ATC-69 9: Recent and Ongoing Research and Development 9-1

• ATC-29-2, Proceedings of Seminar on Seismic Design, Performance,
and Retrofit of Nonstructural Components in Critical Facilities
(ATC, 2003).
The most recent report, ATC-29-2, prepared in cooperation with the

Multidisciplinary Center for Earthquake Engineering Research, focused
principally on nonstructural components and systems in facilities with critical
functions. Invited papers were organized into the following themes related to
the state of the art, state of the practice, and efforts needed to improve the
performance of nonstructural components and contents:
• Current Practices and Emerging Codes
Code provisions and seismic level forces for buildings, with an emphasis
on hospitals; research required for implementation of performance-based
design; seismic qualification using shake table tests and code
requirements; recent and future developments for nonstructural items in
the NEHRP Recommended Provisions; and current practice on
installation of mechanical, electrical, piping, ductwork, and equipment.
• Seismic Design and Retrofit
Economic considerations in the improvement of nonstructural systems;
case studies of behavior and research of nonstructural items such as
cladding, partitions, laboratory equipment, bookcases; retrofit of storage
racks and metal stud partitions; and comparison of nonstructural risks
before and after the nonstructural retrofit.
• Risk and Performance Evaluation
Overview of nonstructural research at the three national earthquake
engineering research centers; behavior of elevators, piping, suspended
ceilings, cladding, and acceleration sensitive equipment; fragility
analysis of nonstructural elements in critical facilities; and estimates of
seismic demands such as floor accelerations.
• System Qualification and Testing
Overview of shake table test characteristics for seismic qualification
testing, and results of seismic qualification tests on selected nonstructural
components and contents.
• Advanced Technologies
Experimental studies with base isolation, energy absorbing devices, and
semi-active devices.
9-2 9: Recent and Ongoing Research and Development ATC-69

9.2.2 FEMA-Funded ATC-58 Project
The Applied Technology Council is under contract with FEMA to conduct

the ATC-58 Project, “Development of Next-Generation Performance-Based
Seismic Design Guidelines.” The overall purpose of this long-term, multi-
phased program is to develop practical and effective performance-based
seismic design guidelines, as outlined in the FEMA-445 Next-Generation
Performance-based Seismic Design Guidelines, Program Plan for New and
Existing Buildings (FEMA 2006).
The project began with the initiation of Phase 1 in 2001. Phase 2 included
the development and publication of the FEMA 461 report, Interim Protocols
for Determining Seismic Performance Characteristics of Structural and
Nonstructural Components (FEMA, 2007), and the 35% draft Guidelines for
the Seismic Performance Assessment of Buildings (ATC, 2007). The current
Phase 3, scheduled to end in 2011, will result in the completion of the
methodology for seismic performance assessment of new and existing
buildings. A later Phase 4 will develop guidelines that will assist engineers
in utilizing the performance assessment methodology to efficiently and
effectively design new buildings and upgrade existing buildings.
The resulting methodology will be applicable to most common building

types designed and constructed in the United States within the past 50 years.
It will provide tools for estimating earthquake losses in terms of causalities,
direct economic losses, and downtime as a result of damage to both structural
and nonstructural components. Of particular value will be the ability to
separate losses into their constituent parts, making it possible to determine
the contribution of each item, or group of items, to total estimated losses, and
to compare the impact of different structural and nonstructural mitigation
strategies.
Completion of the performance assessment and design guidelines will

eventually result in identification and development of the following
nonstructural seismic performance and response information:
• nonstructural systems and components that are important to the
performance of buildings, and damage states that are meaningful to each
of these components and systems
• intensity measures that are useful and efficient for predicting damage to
nonstructural components and systems
• demand parameters that are relevant for predicting damage to
nonstructural components and systems

• standard procedures for quantifying the performance capability (fragility
and loss functions) for nonstructural components and systems, including
testing protocols
• fragility functions for nonstructural components and systems relative to
the damage states identified
• loss functions for nonstructural components and systems
9.2.3 NSF-Funded NEES Grand Challenge
In 2007, the George E. Brown, Jr., Network for Earthquake Engineering

Simulation (NEES) research program of the National Science Foundation
awarded a $3.6 million Grand Challenge grant to the University of Nevada,
Reno (UNR) to study the seismic performance of ceiling-piping-partition
nonstructural systems. Currently in the early stages of planning and
development, this Grand Challenge project will eventually integrate
multidisciplinary system-level studies that will develop a simulation
capability and implementation process for enhancing the seismic
performance of the ceiling-piping-partition system. A comprehensive
experimental program is proposed that will use the UNR and University at
Buffalo NEES Equipment Sites to conduct full-scale subsystem and system-
level experiments.
A numerical simulation program will be integrated with the experimental

program to develop experimentally verified analytical models, establish
system and subsystem fragility functions, and develop visualization tools that
will provide engineering educators and practitioners with sketch-based
modeling capabilities. Public policy investigations at the building and
metropolitan levels are designed to support the implementation of the
research results.
9.3 National Earthquake Engineering Research

Center Activities
A variety of research projects involving both analytical and experimental

work have been undertaken at the national earthquake engineering research
centers, particularly at the Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center
(PEER), in Berkeley, California and at the Multidisciplinary Center for
Earthquake Engineering Research (MCEER), in Buffalo, New York.
Examples of recent research include the following:
• Experimental and Analytical Studies on the Seismic Response of
Freestanding and Anchored Laboratory Equipment, Report PEER
2005/07.
9-4 9: Recent and Ongoing Research and Development ATC-69

• PEER Testbed Study on a Laboratory Building: Exercising Seismic
Performance Assessment, Report PEER 2005/12.
• Simulation of Strong Ground Motions for Seismic Fragility Evaluation
of Nonstructural Components in Hospitals, MCEER-05-0005.
9.4 Private Sector Research in the United States
There are an increasing number of proprietary systems, devices, equipment

and products available to address the seismic performance of nonstructural
items. The development and testing of these products is typically funded by
private manufacturers, although some of these tests are conducted at the
national earthquake engineering research centers. Several examples include:
• MCEER testing of Ridg-U-Rak’s patented unidirectional base isolation
scheme for pallet racks.
• PEER testing of electrical substation equipment for PG&E.
• Shake table testing of electrical components by Square D.
9.5 International Research
Included in Appendix B, Table B-5, are examples of international research,

indicating that there is ongoing research on nonstructural issues outside of
the United States. One of these is a report on the testing of tabletop
equipment situated on an inclined plane, which was performed at the
University of Chile. A comprehensive search of international literature is
beyond the scope of this report.

Chapter 10
Future Needs
10.1 Overview
At present, it appears there are two different challenges in the effort to reduce
future losses associated with nonstructural earthquake damage. While these
represent two points on a continuum, the solutions may end up being quite
different. One is to find cost effective ways to reduce nonstructural losses in
ordinary residential and commercial structures. The other is to meet the
needs of critical facilities to maintain post-earthquake operations.
The challenge for ordinary buildings will be to find cost effective solutions
that do not require custom designs for every nonstructural component. It is
imperative that someone (e.g., the lead design professional, designated
design professional or specialist) be responsible for overseeing the design
and installation of these items. While the building code is increasingly
comprehensive in its treatment of nonstructural items, the development of
many generic, pre-evaluated and pre-approved details that can be used
repetitively, under a variety of circumstances, without the need for
calculations and project-specific details for each pipe and every bookcase on
every project should be encouraged.
The challenge for critical facilities has largely been addressed in the nuclear
industry, where every nonstructural component that is capable of posing a
safety hazard or impacting operations requires pre-installation seismic
qualification testing, seismic design calculations and details, rigorous design
review, construction inspection, and in-place testing. The challenge is to find
ways to scale these efforts down to something that is less costly, and will still
achieve the desired result, which is facilities that are capable of operating
after a major earthquake. The experience of hospital and school construction
in California is an example of a systematic approach that can be adapted for
use in a wide range of occupancy types and locations.
The introduction of performance-based earthquake engineering methods is

likely to provide a quantifiable impetus for improving the treatment of
nonstructural components and contents. There are, however, many issues
with human factors engineering that are a major concern in critical facilities.
Attempts to anchor or tether specialized equipment that must be used on a
daily basis, or periodically moved for maintenance, pose ongoing operational
challenges.
ATC-69 10: Future Needs 10-1

10.2 Recommendations
In order to further the reduction of risks associated with earthquake damage

to nonstructural components and contents, the following actions are
recommended:
1. Update FEMA 74. FEMA 74 is a useful introduction to the subject for
anyone unfamiliar with nonstructural hazard mitigation. This includes
anyone who owns or occupies a building, as well as design professionals,
who might not be experienced with seismic design and protection of
nonstructural components and contents. A revised version of FEMA 74
should emphasize that the most costly damage in future earthquakes in
the United States may well be caused by nonstructural damage; thus
effective earthquake mitigation should consider the cost/benefit of
addressing nonstructural issues. It should also emphasize that this is not
only a cost issue, and that many of these items represent life safety
hazards if not addressed. As reliance on high technology equipment
increases, the risk increases. The graphics and photos in a new edition
should be improved to facilitate easy application and to take advantage
of developments over the past decade.
2. Expand FEMA 74. Many users of FEMA 74 have identified the
availability of details as the most widely used and valuable aspect of the
document. The availability of details addressing a wider range of
nonstructural components and a broader scope of installation conditions
will support increased application of mitigation measures. Consideration
should be given to aligning FEMA 74 with the nonstructural chapter in
ASCE 41 to provide a comprehensive and coordinated suite of
documents addressing the identification, assessment and mitigation of
nonstructural hazards for use by design professionals.
3. Supplement FEMA 74. Additional guides should be developed that
cover not only the technical aspects of seismic design for nonstructural
components and contents, but that also address detailed discussion of the
many other issues involved in their protection. Such issues might
include writing clear design criteria and specifications; requirements for
vendor certification of equipment; assignment of clear responsibilities for
design, installation, and inspection of nonstructural details (including
differences associated with ownership and responsibilities for contents
versus ownership and responsibility for fixed building components);
identification of elements or areas that are most critical to operations; and
determining what backup systems are required. Discussion should cover
how to maintain portability of lab or hospital equipment; how to avoid
tripping hazards; how to make tethers easy to operate and remind
10-2 10: Future Needs ATC-69

personnel to use them; how to anchor delicate equipment without
penetrating the housing; and how to implement a plan that will address
new equipment or furnishings on a continuing basis. This effort should
include development of seminars based on this material to provide
training for nonstructural specialists, and increase awareness of the many
issues related to post-earthquake operations.
4. Establish accountability for seismic design and installation of
nonstructural components by defining responsibilities. This effort
could include the development and use of a “seismic code block” such as
the one in use in St. Louis County, Missouri. The table is required on
every set of drawings submitted for permit and requires identification of
the relevant seismic details for each nonstructural component listed, and
designation of the party accountable for design, shop drawings, and
permits. This provides a public record of accountability, and serves as an
important reminder to the architect or engineer of record to assign these
responsibilities, and for the responsible parties to fulfill these duties.
Successful implementation will require promotion of appropriate code
revisions, and adoption of these requirements in other local jurisdictions.
5. Develop an outreach and education program for Architects,
Mechanical Engineers, Electrical Engineers and Structural
Engineers. Each design professional receives considerable training in
the design of components within their area of expertise. Yet none
receives specialized training in seismic protection of nonstructural
components. Such training should be focused on the dual purpose of
demonstrating the details useful for protecting nonstructural components
and the administrative approaches available for achieving reliable
protection on a project-by-project basis. Courses should be designed to
provide Continuing Education Units (CEUs) for those professions that
require them. University courses on earthquake engineering should also
address seismic protection of nonstructural components.
6. Support training of plan reviewers, building officials and
construction inspectors. Training is needed to enhance the quality and
completeness of plan review and construction inspection for
nonstructural components. Training should include the development of
standardized checklists based on code requirements, to ensure that all
items regulated by the code are examined as part of the plan review and
inspection process.
7. Foster building code refinements and efforts to enhance code
usability to promote comprehensive implementation on all projects.
If building code requirements are clear, technically-grounded, and well

understood, enforcement through plan review and inspection will be
enhanced. In addition, this effort should include support for the
development of acceptable practical guides as companion resources to
building codes.
8. Encourage the designation of nonstructural specialists with
responsibility for oversight of the seismic design of nonstructural
components and contents. One of the key roadblocks to providing
reliable protection of nonstructural components in new construction is
that no one is designated with the responsibility for providing this
protection. There is a critical need for the development of
multidisciplinary specialists that have an understanding of seismic and
structural engineering, as well as mechanical and electrical equipment,
specialty equipment, piping systems, architectural features and finishes,
contents, and human factors engineering. While this role could be
played by the Structural Engineer of Record for a project, it could
alternatively be delegated to a specialist with expertise in this area.
9. Develop standard contract language for seismic protection of
nonstructural components. The development of standard contract
language covering the responsibilities associated with the design,
installation, and inspection of nonstructural components should be
promoted. This language could be incorporated into standard American
Institute of Architects (AIA) contracts, and other contracts, so that the
lead design professional designates responsibility for these tasks.
10. Develop standard specifications for seismic protection of
nonstructural components and contents. The development of standard
specifications for the seismic protection of nonstructural components and
contents should be promoted. This should include providing guidelines
for documentation of properties including weight, center of gravity,
dimensions, recommended anchorage details, and fragilities for

11. Develop a standardized framework for the collection of
nonstructural earthquake damage data, find a host organization to
support the collection, and provide a web-based repository for new
data. Several efforts have been made to standardize the collection of
nonstructural earthquake damage data, but there still is no consensus on
how to proceed. Data gathering is costly, so it is important to clearly
identify what information should be gathered in order to inform efforts to
reduce future losses. We need to identify the failures that are most likely
to result in life safety hazards, expensive repair costs, and extensive
business interruption. In order to generate damage statistics, data must
also be gathered to describe the total quantity of each class of
nonstructural component that was in the affected area. The taxonomy of
nonstructural elements (Porter, 2005) is a start at identifying the vast list
of nonstructural items, their possible locations, and their varying degrees
of anchorage, although even this list does not fully address contents.
Developing a useful electronic data input sheet, with drop down menus
of items, would force users to utilize specified categories for
documenting pre-earthquake characteristics and post-earthquake damage
data in a standardized format. If an organization like the Earthquake
Engineering Research Institute (EERI) hosted a website as a repository
for standardized damage data, it would greatly facilitate the gathering
and dissemination of this information. Also, a nonstructural damage
specialist should be included as part of each post-earthquake
reconnaissance team (EERI or other). Consideration should be given to
gathering additional data through the USGS website feature “Did you
feel it?”
12. Develop a pilot project to collect nonstructural damage data for a
small class of public buildings. In order to start collection of
nonstructural earthquake damage data in a systematic way, a small class
of buildings, such as fire stations or public libraries, should be selected
for a pilot project. Such a project would provide useful information in
the next earthquake, and would also help focus data gathering efforts for
nonstructural damage in future earthquakes. This effort could be
initiated with the preparation of data collection forms relevant for a
selected facility type, along with a data collection plan covering this class
of building in the next earthquake. Data forms should focus on a
manageable list of items, and be designed to include information on
whether bracing or anchorage is present, whether it was designed and
installed properly, and estimates of demand parameters. Recorded
observations should include whether damage was induced by

acceleration or drift, or whether the item was damaged by interaction
with other elements. Forms should also include adequate information to
determine total quantities of nonstructural components, so that statistical
data can be developed.
13. Study ways to mitigate secondary damage from water or steam.
Secondary damage caused by leaks from compromised fluid piping,
including broken sprinkler heads, is a major source of costly repairs, loss
of contents, and business interruption. Testing to validate current
standard approaches to pipe bracing, and exploration of alternate means
of protection, should be accelerated. There are some flexible sprinkler
systems currently on the market. Additional testing of such products,
and other innovative solutions, should be encouraged in order to reduce
the likelihood of piping failures and subsequent water damage. Study
should consider wider use of pressurized shut-off valves and
compartmentalization to limit damage.
14. Support the development of testing and performance data for
engineering design of nonstructural components to bolster the
database available for performance-based engineering. The ATC-58
project promises the ability to quantify losses due to structural and
nonstructural components. However, limitations on available fragility
data will limit application of the methodology to the full spectrum of
nonstructural components and contents. Shake table testing and other
sources should be used to create a robust database of nonstructural
component damage and performance data.
15. Promote development of generic nonstructural anchorage details
and connections available online. Although published guidelines have
their place, an online resource for current details, keyed to a consistent
taxonomy, would expand the usefulness of such a guide. The site could
provide links to many proprietary and nonproprietary products,
specifications, and CAD details, as well as information on testing and
pre-approvals performed by a host of international agencies.
16. Develop standardized ANSI and ISO hazard symbols and a color
scheme for earthquake related hardware. In the same way that we
associate red items with fire suppression equipment, four interlocking
circles with biohazards, or the yellow and black trefoil with radiation, the
development of a symbol and color coding that will universally be
recognized as seismic related should be encouraged. If millions of
employees in thousands of facilities are expected to implement seismic
protection of nonstructural components and contents, they will need
training, visual reminders, signage, and color coding as signals and

reminders that a seismic mitigation plan is in place, and that seismic
installations are important.
17. Support training of building engineers, stationary engineers and
facility managers. After a building has been constructed, nonstructural
components are routinely added or replaced. Training of building
engineers, stationary engineers, and facility managers is needed to ensure
that the components are installed and maintained with consideration of
earthquake performance. Development of additional documents like
FEMA 74, and companion outreach efforts tailored to the needs of
individuals not specially trained in nonstructural hazard mitigation,
should be promoted.

Appendix A
Log of Reported
Nonstructural Earthquake
Damage
Table A-1, Log of Reported Nonstructural Earthquake Damage, is a listing of

major earthquakes, in reverse chronological order, citing damage and
reconnaissance reports, and summarizing the extent of reported nonstructural
earthquake damage.
ATC-69 A: Log of Reported Nonstructural Earthquake Damage A-1

Table A-1 Log of Reported Nonstructural Earthquake Damage (continued)
Publication
Earthquake Date Reference Title Date Reported Nonstructural Damage
Niigata Chuetsu-Oki, 7/16/2007 Preliminary Report on the 10/9/2007 Report includes preliminary information regarding damage at the
Japan, Earthquake of Niigata Chuetsu-Oki, Japan, nuclear power plant in Kariwa. There was fire in an electrical
July 16, 2007 Earthquake of July 16, 2007 transformer and radiation leaks caused by spilling of water from the
spent fuel pools, failure of joints in exhaust pipes, and falling of drums
containing low-radiation nuclear waste. At Reactor 1, EW ground
motion recorded at the plant was 680 cm/sec2. The report notes that
the reactor was designed for 272 cm/sec2 in that direction and an
"importance factor" of 3 was used in the design. No summary of
nonstructural damage provided.
October 15th, 2006 10/15/2006 2006 Kiholo Bay, Hawaii 2006 Damage photos and anecdotal evidence provided; no significant
Earthquakes on the Earthquake RMS statistical data provided.
Island of Hawaii
October 15th, 2006 10/15/2006 Preliminary Observations on 2006 Reported damage to healthcare and emergency response facilities:
Earthquakes on the the Hawaii Earthquakes of Healthcare and emergency response facilities had significant damage to
Island of Hawaii October 15, 2006 their nonstructural systems, principally T-bar lighting and ceiling
systems and fire sprinkler systems (Page 10, 11, and Figure 16).
The Kona Community Hospital, a 94-bed acute care, psychiatric, and
long-term care facility, reported fallen ceilings, light fixtures, and other
nonstructural damage. Failures were attributed to a lack of adequate
seismic bracing for nonstructural components. Following the
earthquake, patients were evacuated and temporarily housed at the
Sheraton Keau Hou Bay Resort and Spa Convention Center, or
transferred to the Hilo Medical Center, or other medical facilities.
The Hale Ho’ola Hamakua facility includes 48 long-term care/skilled
nursing facility beds, two acute care beds, and emergency and health
center services. It consists of several large one- and two-story steel-
framed buildings with concrete masonry unit (CMU) and concrete
walls. The facility was opened in 1995 to replace the original Honoka’a
Hospital that opened in 1951. The main two-story building sustained
significant nonstructural damage to the exterior cladding and soffits,
and to the interior ceiling and wall systems, mainly as a result of broken
sprinkler lines and broken water piping.
ATC-69 Log of Reported Nonstructural Earthquake Damage A-3

Publication
October 15th, 2006 10/15/2006 Preliminary Observations on 2006 Reported damage to healthcare and emergency response facilities,
Earthquakes on the the Hawaii Earthquakes of continued: Following the earthquake, 49 patients at Hale Ho’ola
Island of Hawaii October 15, 2006 Hamakua were evacuated and housed in tents until accommodations
were made in the facility’s original building. Although the building is of
recent construction, the ceiling systems were not laterally braced, did
not have compression struts to prevent vertical movement, and were
not isolated by means of a gap from the surrounding walls. Reportedly,
the design of the building made it difficult to install diagonal bracing
wires because of the distance between the ceiling and the high-pitched
roof. Damage suggests that the ceilings were forced laterally against the
walls, causing a buckling and failure of the T-bar grid that allowed
ceiling tiles, and in some cases fluorescent light fixtures, to fall to the
floor. The interaction of the ceiling system and the fire sprinkler system,
which was only nominally braced, broke a number of sprinkler heads,
resulting in flooding of the building. Water piping in the walls also
broke, and contributed to the flooding. In addition, a heavy cement
plaster on metal lath exterior cladding and soffit system failed, blocking
building exits and creating a falling hazard.
October 15th, 2006 10/15/2006 Preliminary Observations on 2006 Reported damage to schools and libraries:
Earthquakes on the the Hawaii Earthquakes of Waikoloa Elementary, Honoka’a Elementary, and Kohala Elementary
Island of Hawaii October 15, 2006 schools sustained the most damage. Virtually no structural damage was
reported at these schools.
Waikoloa Elementary, less than ten years old, suffered considerable
nonstructural damage. Many classrooms were closed because of an
extensive amount of fallen ceilings, light fixtures, and other
nonstructural items.
The Honoka’a Elementary, an older school dating to the 1950s,
sustained moderate structural damage to concrete masonry block
(CMU) walls that support the roof girders.
Kohala Elementary sustained damage to a two-story classroom building
with wall cracking and ceiling damage. All schools on the island were
able to open one week after the earthquake, sometimes utilizing
alternative rooms.
A-4 Log of Reported Nonstructural Earthquake Damage ATC-69

Publication
October 15th, 2006 10/15/2006 “Reconnaissance Following 10/26/2006 Includes reported nonstructural damage to healthcare facilities,
Earthquakes on the the October 15th, 2006 emergency response facilities, schools, and libraries, as identified in
Island of Hawaii Earthquakes on the Island of preliminary observation reports.
Hawaii,” Ian N. Robertson, Damage to exterior stucco soffits at the Hale Ho’ola medical center is
Peter G. Nicholson, Horst shown (Page 18).
G. Brandes, University of Considerable nonstructural damage to the elementary school in
Hawaii College of Waikaloa is shown (Page 20). Many classrooms remained closed as of
Engineering department of the date of the report due to fallen ceilings, light fixtures and other
Civil and Environmental nonstructural items.
Engineering Research
Report UHM/CEE/06-07
October 15th, 2006 10/15/2006 “Reconnaissance Following 10/26/2006 Reconnaissance continued:

Earthquakes on the the October 15th, 2006 At the Manoa Valley Inn in Manoa, Oahu, a rock-masonry chimney
Island of Hawaii Earthquakes on the Island of collapsed. At Iolani Palace in downtown Honolulu, Oahu, cracking
Hawaii,” Ian N. Robertson, occurred in the interior stucco ceiling and wall finishes. The Nihon
Peter G. Nicholson, Horst Restaurant had diagonal cracking of the infill walls occurred due to the
G. Brandes, University of lack of an isolation gap between the infill and the structure. No statistics
Hawaii College of or numbers are provided.
Engineering department of
Civil and Environmental
Engineering Research
Report UHM/CEE/06-07
2004 Niigata Ken 10/23/2004 Earthquake Spectra, 2006 Photos and anecdotal evidence provided; no significant statistical
Chuetsu, Japan, Volume 22, Special Issue 1, damage data provided. Figure 11 shows a 2-story modern reinforced
Earthquake 2004 Niigata Ken Chuetsu, concrete building, appearing relatively undamaged, except for broken
Japan, Earthquake glass presumably caused by first-floor inter-story drift. Figure 12 shows
Reconnaissance Report, a 10-story dormitory for an electronics company north of Ojiya, which
March 2006 sustained visible facade cracking, and perhaps structural damage.
Adjacent to this dormitory was a high-tech electronics fabrication plant
that reportedly sustained significant business interruption due to
nonstructural damage, but this information was not confirmed as of the
time of the report. This appears to be a reference to Sanyo (see article
from Businessweek, below).

Publication
2004 Niigata Ken 10/23/2004 Businessweek 2005 “In October an earthquake measuring 6.8 on the Richter scale struck
Chuetsu, Japan (online - May 2005) Japan's Niigata prefecture. The temblor damaged machinery at Sanyo
Electric Co.'s semiconductor plant, and forced the facility to close for
months - costing the company, which wasn't insured against quakes,
$690 million in repairs and lost income.”
September 28, 2004 9/28/2004 “Preliminary Report on Damage photos and anecdotal evidence provided; no significant
Parkfield Earthquake September 28, 2004 statistical data provided.
Parkfield Earthquake,”
Rakesh K. Goel, and Charles
B. Chadwell, Department of
Civil & Environmental
Engineering, California
Polytechnic State University,
San Luis Obispo, California
2003 Bam, Iran, 12/26/2003 Preliminary Observations on 2004 Damage photos and anecdotal evidence provided; no significant
Earthquake the Bam, Iran, Earthquake statistical data provided.
of December 26, 2003
2003 Bam, Iran, 12/26/2003 Earthquake Spectra, 2005 Damage photos and anecdotal evidence provided; no significant
Earthquake Volume 21, Special Issue 1, statistical data provided.
2003 Bam, Iran,
Earthquake,
December 2005
San Simeon 12/22/2003 Findings and 5/5/2004 Nonstructural damage not reported.
Earthquake of Recommendations from the
December 22, 2003 San Simeon Earthquake of
December 22, 2003
California Seismic Safety
Commission CSSC No.
04-02
San Simeon 12/22/2003 Nonstructural damage reportedly in excess of 50% of total losses
Earthquake of (information unconfirmed; source unknown).
December 22, 2003

Publication
Tokachi-Oki, Japan, 9/26/2003 “Preliminary Information on 2003 Damage photos and anecdotal evidence provided; no significant
Earthquake of the 2003 Tokachi-oki statistical data provided.
September 26, 2003 Earthquake,” Yohsuke
Kawamata and Scott
Ashford, Department of
Structural Engineering,
University of California, San
Diego
Tokachi-Oki, Japan, 9/26/2003 Preliminary Observations on 2003 Damage photos and anecdotal evidence provided; no significant
Earthquake of the Tokachi-Oki, Japan, statistical data provided.
September 26, 2003 Earthquake of September
26, 2003
Boumerdes, Algeria, 5/21/2003 The Boumerdes, Algeria, 2003 Damage to industrial equipment reported; no statistical data provided.
Earthquake of May Earthquake of May 21,
21, 2003 2003, EERI Learning from
Earthquakes
Reconnaissance Report,
October 2003
May 1, 2003, Bingöl, 5/1/2003 Preliminary Observations on 2003 Nonstructural damage not reported.
Turkey, Earthquake the May 1, 2003, Bingöl,
Turkey, Earthquake
May 1, 2003, Bingöl, 5/1/2003 A Preliminary Engineering Nonstructural damage not reported.
Turkey, Earthquake Report on the Bingöl
Earthquake of May 1, 2003,
Polat Gülkan, Sinan Akkar
and Ufuk Yazgan, Middle
East Technical University
Department of Civil
Engineering and Disaster
Management Research
Center

Publication
May 1, 2003, Bingöl, 5/1/2003 May 01, 2003 Bingöl Nonstructural damage not reported.
Turkey, Earthquake (Turkey) Earthquake; M.
Erdik, M. Demircioğlu, K.
Beyen, K. Şeşetyan, N.
Aydõnoğlu, M. Gul, B.
Siyahi, G. Önem, C. Tüzün,
A. Salkõn, and Y. Kaya,
Department of Earthquake
Engineering, Kandilli
Observatory and
Earthquake Research
Instõtute, Bogazici
University, İstanbul
Colima, Mexico, 1/21/2003 Quick Report To EERI, 1/30/2003 Damage photos and anecdotal evidence provided; no significant
Earthquake of January SMIS, CENAPRED and GIIS statistical data provided.
21, 2003 Regarding The Earthquake
In Colima, Mexico, January
21, 2003
Colima, Mexico, 1/21/2003 Preliminary Observations on 2003 Damage photos and anecdotal evidence provided; no significant
Earthquake of January the Tecomán, Colima, statistical data provided.
21, 2003 Mexico, Earthquake of
January 21, 2003
Tecomán, México 1/21/2003 The Tecomán, México 2006 Cracking of unreinforced masonry walls, roof tiles collapsed, no
Earthquake January Earthquake January 21, statistics at all
21, 2003 2003. An EERI and SMIS
Learning from Earthquakes
Reconnaissance Report
November 3, 2002 11/3/2002 Preliminary Observations on Damage photos and anecdotal evidence provided; no significant
Denali Fault, Alaska the November 3, 2002 statistical data provided.
Earthquake Denali Fault, Alaska,
Earthquake

Publication
2002 Molise, Italy, 10/31/2002 Preliminary Observations on 2003 Damage photos and anecdotal evidence provided; no significant
Earthquake (October the October 31-November statistical data provided.
31 and November 1, 1, 2002 Molise, Italy,
2002) Earthquake Sequence
2002 Molise, Italy, 10/31/2002 Earthquake Spectra, 2004 Damage photos and anecdotal evidence provided; no significant
Earthquake (October Volume 20, Special Issue I, statistical data provided.
31 and November 1, 2002 Molise, Italy,
2002) Earthquake Reconnaissance
Report, July 2004
Southern Peru, 6/23/2001 Earthquake Spectra, 2003 Chapter 8: Reports heavy damage to industrial equipment, but also
Earthquake of June Volume 19, Supplement A, failure of light poles, ceilings, electrical equipment, fire suppression
23, 2001 Southern Peru, Earthquake piping, and damage to artifacts and frescoes in historic cathedral in
of 23 June 2001 Arequipa.
January 2003
February 28, 2001 2/28/2001 “Guidelines, Specifications, 2002 Chapter 2, entitled "Performance of Building Components During the
Nisqually Earthquake and Seismic Performance February 28, 2001, Nisqually Earthquake" includes many photos and a
Characterization of statement that, "A large portion of the estimated $2 billion dollar loss
Nonstructural Building resulting from the Nisqually earthquake was associated with damage to
Components and nonstructural components.” Statistical data not provided.
Equipment,” A. Filiatrault,
C. Christopoulus, and C.
Stearns, PEER Report
2002/05

Publication
February 28, 2001 2/28/2001 “Reconnaissance Report of 2001 Includes a brief description of failed ceilings, failed lights, overturned
Nisqually Earthquake the February 28, 2001 furniture, and cracked plaster. Windows in the control tower at
Nisqually (Seattle-Olympia) SEA-TAC Airport failed, store front glazing failed, bookshelves fell. Even
Earthquake,” A. Filiatrault, though building structures generally performed well during the
C. Uang, B. Folz, C. earthquake, the performance of non-structural components reduced
Christopoulos, and K. Gatto, the overall performance of many building systems. No statistical data or
March 2001 numbers provided. [Report was sponsored by the Pacific Earthquake
Engineering Research (PEER) Center and the Consortium of Universities
for Earthquake Engineering (CUREE), and Department of Structural
Engineering, University of California, San Diego]
February 28, 2001 2/28/2001 The Nisqually Earthquake of 2001 Reported nonstructural damage similar to other reports; no statistical
Nisqually Earthquake 28 February 2001 data or numbers provided.
Preliminary Reconnaissance
Report, Nisqually
Earthquake Clearinghouse
Group, University of
Washington, Seattle,
Washington, March 2001
February 28, 2001 2/28/2001 Nonstructural damage reportedly in excess of 50% of total losses
Nisqually Earthquake (information not confirmed, source unknown).
Napa Earthquake of 9/3/2000 EERI Special Earthquake 2000 Queen of the Valley Hospital, Napa: 25% of all suspended ceiling tiles
September 3, 2000 Report, Learning from dropped to the floor; ceiling damage most prevalent near the walls; no
Earthquakes, The Napa light fixtures fell; no sprinkler heads were damaged; a chiller on the
Earthquake of September 3, roof fell off the vibration mounts. Statistical data on damage for other
2000, November 2000 nonstructural components not provided.
Chi-Chi, Taiwan, 9/21/1999 Earthquake Spectra, 2001 Chapters 7 and 9: Many residential buildings were reportedly given red
Earthquake of Volume 17, Supplement A, tags because of nonstructural damage to the concrete curtain walls and
September 21, 1999 Chi-Chi, Taiwan, the brick partition and infill walls. Over 100,000 people were
Earthquake of September displaced. Statistical data not provided.
21, 1999, Reconnaissance
Report, April 2001

Publication
Kocaeli, Turkey, 8/18/1999 Earthquake Spectra, 2000 Chapters 14 and 16: Skylights reportedly popped out; storage racks
Earthquake of August Volume 16, Supplement A, used for steel plates collapsed; expansion joints opened; and light
18, 1999 Kocaeli, Turkey, Earthquake fixtures fell. One substation transformer displaced horizontally,
of August 18, 1999, requiring repair. Piping failures reported in some facilities. Stacked and
Reconnaissance Report, stored material, however, was not displaced.
December 2000
Kobe, Japan 1/17/1995 Nonstructural Damage 5/7/1999 The MCEER Database (1999) includes many line items documenting
Earthquake, January Database, MCEER-99-0014 specific references to nonstructural damage from this earthquake. No
17, 1995 comprehensive summary or statistical data provided.
1994 Northridge, CA 1/17/1994 Earthquake Spectra, 1995 Chapter 11: Includes many examples of little or no structural damage,
Earthquake Supplement C to Volume but buildings were reportedly out of operation due to nonstructural
11, Northridge Earthquake damage. Damage to low-rise storefronts was more prominent than
of January 17, 1994 high-rise curtain walls. Suspended ceilings with diagonal braces had less
Reconnaissance Report, damage than older pre-1980 ceilings, even if they were not fully code-
Volume 1, April 1995 compliant. Architectural, mechanical and electrical systems were not
coordinated and interfered with each other. Extensive disruption to
essential functions was caused by nonstructural damage. Water leakage
was a major cause, as piping failures of a few pipes caused large
disruption. Leakage found early was controlled, but in other cases
damage was extensive after hours of leakage. One reported death due
to water dripping on a properly functioning emergency power system.
Failure of emergency power systems was prevalent. Criteria for post
earthquake inspection of nonstructural hazards (ATC-20) were not
properly followed. Buildings with dangerous nonstructural damage,
such as glass and roof tiles, were green tagged instead of yellow tagged.

Publication
1994 Northridge, CA 1/17/1994 Earthquake Spectra, 1995 Northridge Earthquake continued: Typical recommendations for
Earthquake Supplement C to Volume museum pieces appeared to work well. Of 500,000 objects in
11, Northridge Earthquake museums, only 150 suffered damage. Raised computer floors
of January 17, 1994 performed relatively well. Ceilings were dislodged in 40% of the
Reconnaissance Report, facilities surveyed. Seismic switches worked in some cases and not in
Volume 1, April 1995 others. Reported elevator damage was as follows: 17 rail damage, 11
counterweight derail, 9 rail damage and/or counterweight derail, 9
unspecified damage, 2 motor damage, and 2 miscellaneous, for a total
of 50 damaged elevators; 8-pound rails were more prone to failure
than 15-pound rails.
1994 Northridge, CA 1/17/1994 "It Makes Dollars and Sense 10/24/2003 Kircher states: "Results show that earthquake losses are dominated by
Earthquake to Improve Nonstructural nonstructural (and contents) damage. For example, of the approximate
System Performance," C. $6.3 billion of direct economic loss to non-residential buildings that
Kircher, ATC-29-2 occurred due to the 1994 Northridge earthquake, only about $1.1
billion is due to structural damage." Data on overall nonstructural
damage from this earthquake is not provided.
1994 Northridge, CA 1/17/1994 “Elevator Earthquake 1994 Cites damage to elevators and escalators; 688 cases of derailment of
Earthquake Damage – January 17, elevator counterweights reported. Describes one instance where
1994,” McTiernan, W.E., escalator truss fell.
Elevator, Tramway, and
Amusement Ride Unit of
the California Division of
Occupational Safety and
Health, San Francisco, CA.
Klamath Falls 9/20/1993 The Klamath Falls Reports extensive failure of parapets; terracotta also failed; statistical
Earthquake of Earthquake of September data not provided.
September 20, 1993 20, 1993, Special
Earthquake Report

Publication
Guam Earthquake of 8/8/1993 Earthquake Spectra, 1995 Chapter 5: Includes reported damage to concrete block partitions,
August 8, 1993 Supplement B to Volume heavy furniture and televisions, and failure of spring-mounted
11, Guam Earthquake of equipment in hotel buildings.
August 8, 1993
April 1995
Hokkaido-Nansei-Oki 7/12/1993 Earthquake Spectra, 1995 Chapter 7 and 8: Includes some reported cladding damage; report of
Earthquake and Supplement A to Volume well-behaved battery racks; no major nonstructural issues reported.
Tsunami of July 12, 11, Hokkaido-Nansei-Oki
1993 Earthquake and Tsunami of
July 12, 1993
April 1995
Landers and Big Bear 6/28/1992 Landers and Big Bear 1992 Reported failures of hung ceilings, light fixtures, and items in grocery
Earthquakes of June Earthquakes of June 28 and stores; statistical data not provided.
28 and 29, 1992 29, 1992
Landers and Big Bear 6/28/1992 The Landers Big Bear 1992 Nonstructural damage not reported.
Earthquakes of June Earthquakes, Newsletter 1
28 and 29, 1992 Opinions
Landers and Big Bear 6/28/1992 Earthquake-Damaged Big 1993 Observatory equipment and telescope were badly damaged.
Earthquakes of June Bear Solar Observatory
28 and 29, 1992 Reopened
Landers and Big Bear 6/28/1992 The Landers Big Bear Includes reports of injuries that were most likely due to failures of
Earthquakes of June Earthquakes Newsletter 2 nonstructural components.
28 and 29, 1992 Casualty Data
Erzincan, Turkey, 3/13/1992 Earthquake Spectra, 1993 Chapters 5 and 6: Structural damage was reportedly extensive; little
Earthquake of March Supplement to Volume 9, reported on nonstructural damage; some mention of equipment
13, 1992 Erzincan, Turkey, failure.
Earthquake of March13,
1992 Reconnaissance
Report, July 1993

Publication
Costa Rica 4/22/1991 Earthquake Spectra , 1991 Chapters 4 and 5: A light steel building collapsed when heavy paper
Earthquake of April Supplement B to Volume 7, rolls damaged the columns. In the Limon Hospital, reported
22, 1991 Costa Rica Earthquake of nonstructural damage included large areas of dislodged T-bar ceiling
April 22, 1991 system; some failure of the fluorescent light hangers and ceiling fans;
Reconnaissance Report, overturned bookcases and furniture; and widespread fracture and loss
October 1991 of asbestos panel roofing. Anchorage problems, and internal
mechanical damage, were reported for some boilers.
Philippines 7/16/1990 Earthquake Spectra, 1991 Chapters 5, 6 and 10: Many museum objects were not subject to
Earthquake of July Supplement A to Volume 7, catastrophic failure; however, much of the pottery in the collections
16, 1990 Philippines Earthquake of was destroyed. Most of the collections consisted of wood carvings and
July 16, 1990 baskets. These objects survived the earthquake because of their
Reconnaissance Report, inherent robustness. Statistical data not provided.
October 1991
Loma Prieta, 10/17/1989 Earthquake Spectra, 1990 Chapter 9: There are 428 hospitals and health care facilities under the
California, Supplement to Volume 6, jurisdiction of OSHPD. Of these, 282 had seismic safety devices reset.
Earthquake of Loma Prieta, California, Fifty of these had damage that required repair (Table 9.5). Limited
October 17, 1989 Earthquake of October 17, information reported on repair times indicates that 3 units took from
1989 Reconnaissance three to five days to repair, 11 units took seven days to repair, and 1
Report, May 1990 unit took five weeks to repair.

Publication
Loma Prieta, 10/17/1989 Earthquake Spectra, 1990 Loma Prieta Chapter 9, continued:
California, Supplement to Volume 6, $50 million in cumulative losses reported for PG&E:
Earthquake of Loma Prieta, California, 1. Damage to exterior unreinforced masonry-brick veneer and facade
October 17, 1989 Earthquake of October 17, systems, especially in upper stories, that resulted in extreme life-hazard
1989 Reconnaissance to pedestrians below.
Report, May 1990 2. Modern precast concrete cladding panels and connections in
multistoried commercial buildings appeared to have performed
satisfactorily, without noticeable damage or collapse.
3. Broken windows and storefront glazing resulted in many hazardous
conditions on sidewalks; also caused temporary loss of operability of
businesses.
4. Damage to interior gypsum board and hollow-clay tile partitions
caused by drift of building structural systems.
5. Damage to suspended-ceiling systems in many medium-rise
buildings caused by drift of building structural systems. Suspended
ceiling damage was typical of that observed during previous
earthquakes. Damage occurred mainly at ceiling perimeters, and at
interior building corners.
Loma Prieta, 10/17/1989 Loma Prieta October 17, Nonstructural damage not reported.
California, 1989 Preliminary
Earthquake of Reconnaissance Report,
October 17, 1989 Part 1
Loma Prieta, 10/17/1989 Loma Prieta October 17, Nonstructural damage of $50 million reported in some facilities.
California, 1989 Preliminary Ceiling, partition and piping damage was extensive. Damage to store
Earthquake of Reconnaissance Report, front glazing was also extensive. Sales floors suffered extensive damage.
October 17, 1989 Part 2 Theaters suffered heavy ceiling damage.
Whittier Narrows, 10/1/1987 Earthquake Spectra, 1988 Chapter 5: The traditional suggested method for anchoring water
California, Volume 4, Issue 2, The heaters using plumbers tape (perforated steel straps) proved to be
Earthquake of Whittier Narrows, inadequate. Water heaters moved, and rigid pipe connections were
October 1, 1987 California, Earthquake of broken. Many semi-flexible tubing connections also failed. In addition,
October 1, 1987 poor installation practices resulted in failures that allowed water heaters
Reconnaissance Report, to fall over.
May 1988

Publication
Whittier Narrows, 10/1/1987 Earthquake Spectra, 1988 Chapter 3: Reported nonstructural damage to buildings at California
California, Volume 4, Issue 2, The State University, Los Angeles (CSULA):
Earthquake of Whittier Narrows, 1. Extensive damage to partition walls, acoustical ceiling tiles, light
October 1, 1987 California, Earthquake of fixtures, wall mounted television sets, floor tiles/coverings, and sound
October 1, 1987, baffles attached to ceiling conduits.
Reconnaissance Report, 2. Damage to pipe lines and chillers mounted in the upper floors of
May 1988 buildings.
3. Damage to mechanical equipment and utilities, resulting in gas and
water leaks.
4. Extensive damage to library stacks and books.
5. Flash fire in a top floor chemistry lab (Physical Sciences Building).
6. Hazardous and toxic combinations of liquid chemicals in the
chemistry labs due to fallen and broken bottles.
7. Release of hazardous levels of existing friable asbestos contamination
into the air (Salazar Hall and Physical Sciences Building).
8. Damaged and temporarily inoperable elevators in various buildings.
9. Damage to desk-top personal computers in computer labs and
offices, due to objects falling from the ceilings.
10. A student fatality caused by a 5000-pound precast concrete rail-
panel falling from a height of 25 feet.
San Salvador 10/10/1986 Earthquake Spectra, 1987 Chapters 7, 10, 11, and 12: Includes reports of overturned batteries
Earthquake of Volume 3, Number 3, An and ceramic breakage at electrical substations. Loss of operations was
October 10, 1986 EERI Learning from reportedly a major contributor to the losses for this Earthquake, but
Earthquakes Publication, numbers or statistics are not provided.
The San Salvador
Earthquake of October 10,
1986, August 1987

Publication
Mexico Earthquake of 9/19/1985 Earthquake Spectra, 1989 Chapter 13: Reports on poor performance of heavy cladding on subject
September 19, 1985 Volume 5, Number 1, An buildings. Statistical data not provided.
EERI Learning from
Earthquakes Publication,
The Mexico Earthquake of
September 19, 1985,
February 1989
Chile Earthquake of 3/3/1985 Earthquake Spectra, 1986 Chapter 4, 5, 6 and 9: Includes reports of some window glass
March 3, 1985 Volume 2, Number 2, An breakage, and collapsed ceilings. In industrial facilities, piping failures
EERI Learning from were reported at equipment, and at intersections between large and
Earthquakes Publication, small pipes; 10% of tanks founded on sand reportedly failed. In
The Chile Earthquake of hospitals, nonstructural damage was extensive.
March 3, 1985, February
1986
Morgan Hill, 4/24/1984 Earthquake Spectra, 1985 Chapter 4, 5, 6 and 8: Reported nonstructural damage at selected
California, Volume 1, Number 3, An facilities included: Wiltron facility - significant damage to the structure
Earthquake of April EERI Learning from and contents, San Martin Winery - shifting of equipment, IBM Santa
24, 1984 Earthquakes Publication, Teresa - some damage to ceilings and fallen light fixtures that damaged
The Morgan Hill, California, consoles; Alexian Hospital in San Jose - overturning of 1 piece of
Earthquake of April 24, equipment; Jackson Elementary School in Morgan Hill - ceilings fell;
1984, May 1985 Morgan Hill Elementary School - small amount of ceiling damage in the
multi-use room, Raymond Gwinn Elementary School in San Martin -
bookshelves overturned, artwork fell.
Damage at hospitals and public school disclosed that adopted
regulations appear to be adequate; however, field control of installed
items must be improved. Also building owners and their staff must
become aware of the importance of properly anchoring fixed shelving,
equipment, and other contents installed by the owners.
Interior damage in many homes appeared to be disproportionate to the
magnitude of the earthquake and the general lack of structural damage.
Large dressers and bookcases fell over, contents of shelves in kitchens
and other storage areas spilled onto floors, pictures fell off walls, and a
few windows were broken (Figures 14, 15, and 16).
State officials estimated the dollar loss attributed to content damage

Publication
was in excess of $2.5 million.
Borah Peak, Idaho, 10/18/1983 Earthquake Spectra, Chapters 10 and 11: Includes reports of fallen parapets, fallen veneer,
Earthquake of Volume 2, Number 1, An and cracked chimneys. Two fatalities (children), reportedly due to
October 18, 1983 EERI Learning from falling debris at a storefront. $12.5 million in estimated damage.
Earthquakes Publication,
The Borah Peak, Idaho,
Earthquake of October 18,
1983, November 1985
1971 San Fernando 2/9/1971 “Nonstructural Damage, 1973 Detailed report; overall statistical data not provided.
Earthquake The San Fernando,
California Earthquake of
February 9, 1971,” Vol. 1B,
Ayres, J. M., and Sun, T. Y.,
National Oceanic and
Atmospheric
Administration,
Washington, D.C.
1971 San Fernando 2/9/1971 Automatic Sprinklers and 1973 Detailed report of damage to sprinklers and fire protection equipment,
Earthquake Earthquakes, Earthquake and good overview of the performance of fire protection systems. Some
Fire Seminar, Anaheim statistics, including information about specific types of failures are
California provided. Of 973 sprinklered properties in the affected area, detailed
surveys were made on 68 of these properties. The single most repetitive
failure was reported to be C-type clamps without lock nuts or retaining
straps, used with threaded U-type hangers.

Publication
1971 San Fernando 2/9/1971 Preliminary Findings from New effort is needed to safeguard electrical and communication
Earthquake the Los Angeles Earthquake equipment and to protect essential equipment within buildings. Greater
February 9, 1971, attention to safety measures in the use of glass for windows and doors is
Earthquake Engineering called for.
Research Institute
1964 Alaska 3/27/1964 "Nonstructural Damage to 1973 Detailed report; overall statistical data not provided.
Earthquake Buildings, The Great Alaska
Earthquake of 1964," Ayres,
J. M., and Sun, T. Y.,
National Academy of
Sciences, Washington, D.C.
1964 Alaska 3/27/1964 Automatic Sprinklers and 1973 Automatic sprinkler systems were reportedly the only mechanical
Earthquake Earthquakes, Earthquake system with seismic resistant design; other systems were generally
Fire Seminar, Anaheim unbraced. In one new department store, sprinkler lines were distorted
California but otherwise undamaged (building was demolished due to structural
damage).
1952 Kern County, 7/21/1952 Automatic Sprinklers and 1973 Little reported damage to automatic sprinkler systems or properly
California Earthquakes, Earthquake braced elevated sprinkler gravity tanks.
Fire Seminar, Anaheim
California
1933 Long Beach, 3/10/1933 Automatic Sprinklers and 1973 Report on investigation by Board of Fire Underwriters of the Pacific: Of
California Earthquakes, Earthquake 150 sprinklered properties investigated, 40% had no shutdowns or
Fire Seminar, Anaheim limited shutdowns; 40% had partial impairments; and the remaining
California 20% had total shutdowns. Of those that experienced shutdowns, 60%
were restored to service within 72 hours. There were no fires in
sprinklered properties following this earthquake. This prompted
changes in seismic design of elevated sprinkler gravity tanks, anchoring
of sprinkler pressure tanks, and mandatory provisions for seismic
bracing of overhead sprinkler piping and flexible couplings in sprinkler
risers.
1925 Santa Barbara 1/1/1925 Reportedly, one fatality due to a falling bookcase occurred at University
Earthquake of California, Santa Barbara (information unconfirmed, source
unknown).

Appendix B
List of Resources Related to
Appendix B is a list of available resources related to nonstructural

components, including codes and standards, testing protocols, guidance
documents, nonproprietary details, photos, sample specifications, proprietary
details, products, and research efforts. Information is organized into the
following tables:
Table B-1 Codes and Standards Related to Nonstructural

Components ..........................................................................B-3
Table B-2 Guidance Documents Related to Nonstructural

Components ..........................................................................B-9
Table B-3 Nonproprietary Details and Other Resources for

Table B-4 Proprietary Details and Products for the Protection of

Table B-5 Recent and Ongoing Research Related to Nonstructural

Components ........................................................................B-29
ATC-69 B: List of Resources Related to Nonstructural Components B-1

Table B-1 Codes and Standards Related to Nonstructural Components (continued)
Document Publication Relevant

Number/Source Title Date Sections Comments
ACI 318-08 Building Code Requirements 2008 Appendix D Appendix on requirements for anchorage in concrete; published by
for Reinforced Concrete and the American Concrete Institute, Detroit, Michigan.
Commentary
ACI 355.2-07 Qualification of Post-Installed 2007 Published by the American Concrete Institute, Detroit, Michigan.
Mechanical Anchors in
Concrete
ASCE/SEI 7-05 Minimum Design Loads for 2005 Chapter 13 Chapter specifying seismic design requirements for nonstructural
Buildings and Other components; published by the American Society of Civil Engineers,
Structures Reston, Virginia.
SEI/ASCE 31-03 Seismic Evaluation of Existing 2003 Sections 3.9, Successor document to FEMA 310 Handbook for the Seismic
Buildings 4.2.7, 4.8, Evaluation of Buildings – A Prestandard. Relevant sections describe
and Table 4-9 evaluation procedures for existing nonstructural components.
Includes comprehensive checklists of potential nonstructural
hazards. Published by the American Society of Civil Engineers,
Reston, Virginia.
ASCE/SEI 41-06 Seismic Rehabilitation of 2007 Chapter 11 Successor document to FEMA 356 Prestandard and Commentary for
Existing Buildings the Seismic Rehabilitation of Buildings. Relevant chapter describes
design procedures for the rehabilitation of existing nonstructural
components, and a table identifying nonstructural component types
and their applicability to different performance objectives. Published
by the American Society of Civil Engineers, Reston, Virginia.
ASCE/SEI 43-05 Seismic Design Criteria for 2005 Provides design criteria for structures, systems, and components in
Structures, Systems, and nuclear facilities, with the goal of ensuring that these facilities can
Components in Nuclear withstand the effects of earthquake ground shaking at the desired
Facilities level of performance. Published by the American Society of Civil
Engineers, Reston, Virginia.
ASHRAE SPC 171P Method of Test of Seismic 2006 Establishes methods of testing and documenting the working shear
Restraint Devices for and tensile strength of seismic restraint devices that are integral with
HVAC&R Equipment vibration isolators or resilient devices. Published by the American
Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers,
Inc., Atlanta, Georgia.


ASTM E580/ Standard Practice for 2006 Standard for Zone 2; could also be used for Zones 3 and 4.
E580M-06 Application of Ceiling Published by ASTM International, West Conshohocken,
Suspension Systems for Pennsylvania.
Acoustical Tile and Lay-In
Panels in Areas Requiring
Seismic Restraint
Bulletin Seismic Restraint of 2004 Addresses suspended ceilings and non-load bearing partitions.
2004-014-BU Nonstructural Components Published by the City of Vancouver, British Columbia.
(Vancouver)
CSA S832-06 Seismic Risk Reduction of 2006 Operational and functional components (OFCs) is a Canadian term
(Canada) Operational and Functional for nonstructural components. The second edition of a document
Components (OFCs) of first published in 2001. Describes how to identify and evaluate
Buildings hazards caused by nonstructural components, and provides
strategies to mitigate damage. Intended to be applicable to most
buildings types, either new or existing, and intended for building
owners, inspectors, facility managers, engineers, architects and
others whose focus is to provide safety, serviceability and durability
of nonstructural components when subjected to earthquakes.
Published by the Canadian Standard Association, Mississauga,
Ontario.
E.030 National Construction Code, 2003 Design requirements for buildings in Peru. Drift provisions changed
(Peru) Technical Standard for in 1997, and are now among the most stringent in the world. Drift
Buildings, E.030 Earthquake- must be computed without an R factor, and allowable drift is limited
Resistant Design to .007h for reinforced concrete, and .01h for steel structures.
Standard school construction must be confined concrete, and
masonry infill must be isolated from the concrete frame. Schools
built since 1997 meeting these criteria have suffered virtually no
damage in recent large earthquakes in Peru. Published by El Servicio
Nacional de Normalización, Capacitación e Investigación para la
Industria de la Construcción (SENCICO), Lima, Perú.
B-4 B: List of Resources Related to Nonstructural Components ATC-69


EN 1998-1:2004(E) Eurocode 8: Design of 2004 Part 1, Includes general rules, seismic actions, and rules for buildings.
(Europe) Structures For Earthquake Sections Relevant sections cover design of nonstructural elements and
Resistance (English version, 4.3.5, 4.3.6 additional measures for masonry infilled frames. Non-structural
Final Draft) elements mentioned include parapets, gables, antennae, mechanical
appendages and equipment, curtain walls, partitions, and railings.
Nonstructural elements that might cause risks to persons, affect the
main structure, or disrupt services of critical facilities must be verified
to resist seismic design actions. Designs for nonstructural elements of
great importance are based on realistic models of the structure and
on appropriate response spectra derived from the response of the
supporting structural elements. Lateral force calculations include
consideration of period ratio, importance factor, and behavior
factor. Published by the European Committee for Standardization
(CEN).
IBC 2006 2006 International Building 2006 National model building code, latest edition; scheduled for adoption
Code in most jurisdictions across the United States. Specifically references
ASCE 7-05 for design of nonstructural components. Published by the
International Code Council, Washington, D.C.
IBC 2003 2003 International Building 2003 National model building code; adopted in some areas of the United
Code States. Published by the International Code Council, Washington,
D.C.
ICC-ES AC-156 Acceptance Criteria for 2004 Published by the International Code Council Evaluation Service,
Seismic Qualification by Whittier, California.
Shake-Table Testing of
and Systems.
NFPA 13 Standard for the Installation 2007 Published by the National Fire Protection Association, Quincy,
of Sprinkler Systems, 2007 Massachusetts.
Edition


NCh 433.Of96 Chilean Norm 1996 Chilean code for buildings. Includes the following drift criteria: (1)
(Chile) NCh 433.Of96, Earthquake drift must be computed without an R factor; and (2) must be less
Resistant Design of Buildings than 0.002h for buildings with precast shear walls with dry joints;
less than 0.003h for shear wall building with rigidly attached
masonry infill; less than .0075h for unbraced frames with isolated
infill; and less than .015h for other structures. Includes a scale factor
Q/Qmin that allows a reduction of the computed drift for longer
period structures where the design base shear Q is less than a
minimum base shear Qmin. Stringent drift criteria (more stringent
than U.S. codes) have resulted in an almost exclusive use of shear
wall systems in buildings. As a result, drift-related nonstructural
damage is significantly reduced. Published by the Instituto Nacional
de Normalizacion (INN-Chile), Santiago, Chile.
NCh 2369.Of2003 Chilean Norm NCh2369, 2003 Chilean code for industrial buildings. Includes recommendations and
(Chile) Earthquake Resistant Design design rules for mechanical equipment that could be applicable to
of Industrial Structures and other types of buildings. Currently only available in Spanish.
Facilities Published by the Instituto Nacional de Normalizacion (INN-Chile),
Santiago, Chile.
UBC 1961 Uniform Building Code, 1961 1961 First appearance of separate provisions for nonstructural components
Edition in the UBC; maximum lateral force of 0.2g in Zone 3.
UBC 1976 Uniform Building Code, 1976 1976 Nonstructural provisions updated in response to 1971 San Fernando
Edition Earthquake; maximum force increased to 0.3g in Zone 4.
UBC 1988 Uniform Building Code, 1988 1988 Update of nonstructural provisions to consider response of non-rigid
Edition items and items at grade; maximum force remained 0.3g in Zone 4
for rigid items.
UBC 1997 Uniform Building Code, 1997 1997 Nonstructural seismic requirements are a blend of requirements
Edition from the 1994 and 1997 NEHRP Recommended Provisions for
Seismic Regulations for New Buildings and Other Structures.
USACE Tri-Service Manual, Seismic 1998 Chapter 10 Successor document to TM 5-809-10 and TM 5-809-10-1.
TI 809-04 Design for Buildings Published by the US Army Corps of Engineers, Washington, D.C.


USACE Tri-Service Manual, Seismic 1996 Chapter 8, Provides a dynamic analysis procedure for design of nonstructural
TM 5-809-10 Design for Buildings Appendix L components that must remain functional after a major earthquake.
Requires generation of floor response spectra and consideration of
inter-story drift at the location of essential equipment. Appendix
includes four design examples. Published by the US Army Corps of
Engineers, Washington, D.C.
USACE Tri-Service Manual, Seismic 1986 Chapter 6 Provides methodology for design; defines essential nonstructural
TM 5-809-10-1 Design Guidelines for systems (Table 6-3); defines two levels of earthquake ground motion
Essential Buildings (EQ-I and EQ-II); requires equipment certification. Published by the
US Army Corps of Engineers, Washington, D.C.
USACE Tri-Service Manual, Seismic 1988 Chapter 9 Chapter focuses on improving performance of existing nonstructural
TM-5-809-10-2 Design Guidelines for installations. Includes a list of nonstructural systems with descriptions
Upgrading Existing Buildings of potential damage and failure modes (Table 9-1). Published by the
US Army Corps of Engineers, Washington, D.C.
VISCMA 102-07 Static Qualification Standards 2007 Testing protocol for mechanical, electrical and plumbing equipment.
for Obtaining a VISCMA Published by the Vibration Isolation and Seismic Control
Compliant Seismic Manufacturers Association, Wayne, Pennsylvania.
Component Rating

Table B-2 Guidance Documents Related to Nonstructural Components (continued)

ASHRAE RP-812 A Practical Guide to Seismic 1999 Published by the American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-
Restraint Conditioning Engineers, Inc., Atlanta, Georgia.
ASHRAE /SMACNA Seismic Restraint 2002 Provides technical information for design and installation of seismic
Applications CD-ROM restraints for HVAC equipment, piping, and ducts. Includes
representative bracing details, layout examples, and tables. Consists of
portions of the following documents: SMACNA's Seismic Restraint
Manual: Guidelines for Mechanical Systems; ASHRAE's Handbook -
HVAC Applications (2003); and ASHRAE's A Practical Guide to
Seismic Restraint. Produced by the American Society of Heating,
Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers, Inc. and the Sheet
Metal and Air Conditioning Contractors' National Association.
CISCA 1991 Recommendations for 1991 Industry standards for ceilings in low seismic zones. Published by
Direct-Hung Acoustical and Ceilings and Interior Systems Construction Association, Deerfield,
Lay-in Panel Ceilings, Seismic Illinois.
Zones 0-2
CISCA 1990 Recommendations for 1990 Industry standards for ceilings in high seismic zones. Published by
Direct-Hung Acoustical and Ceilings and Interior Systems Construction Association, Deerfield,
Lay-in Panel Ceilings, Seismic Illinois.
Zones 3-4
DGS, DSA Guide and Checklist for Identifies potential hazards associated with nonstructural components
(California ) Nonstructural Earthquake and provides recommendations to mitigate hazards. Includes typical
Hazards in California Schools details and a nonstructural earthquake hazards checklist. Published by
the California State Department of General Services, Division of the
State Architect, and the Governer’s Office of Emergency Services,
Sacramento, California.


DOISSP Nonstructural Hazards Contains guidance gathered from various sources, both public and
Rehabilitation Guidelines; private sources. Includes both proprietary and non-proprietary
Vol. I; Guidelines Usage, details. Published by the Department of the Interior Bureau of
Architectural, Mechanical, Reclamation, Seismic Safety Program (DOISSP), Washington, D.C.
Electrical, Plumbing
DOISSP Nonstructural Hazards Contains guidance gathered from various sources, both public and
Rehabilitation Guidelines; private sources. Includes both proprietary and non-proprietary
Vol. II; Furnishings, Interior details. Published by the Department of the Interior Bureau of
Equipment, Miscellaneous Reclamation, Seismic Safety Program (DOISSP), Washington, D.C.
Components, Mobile
Homes, Manufactured
Homes, FEMA 273, FEMA
310, FEMA 178, & ASCE 31-
xx Excerpts
EERI 84-04 Nonstructural Issues of 1984 Results of workshop including invited papers on nonstructural issues.
Seismic Design and Published by the Earthquake Engineering Research Institute, Oakland,
Construction California.
FEMA Instructor's Guide for 1988 Materials for course given by Emergency Management Institute,
Nonstructural Earthquake Emmitsburg, Maryland.
Mitigation for Hospitals and
other Health Care facilities.
FEMA Final Report, Nonstructural 2004 Based on FEMA Region X Earthquake Hazard Mitigation Handbook
Earthquake Mitigation for Public Facilities, 2002. Includes flowcharts, step-by-step
Guidance Manual. procedures and some details. Divides nonstructural components into
four groups: contents, exterior building elements, interior building
elements, and building utilities. Prepared by URS Group, Inc. for
FEMA.
FEMA Region X Earthquake Hazard 2002 Available at http://www.conservationtech.com/FEMA-WEB/FEMA-
Mitigation Handbook for subweb-EQ/index.htm
Public Facilities


FEMA 74 Reducing the Risks of 1994 Successor document to previous editions of FEMA 74, first published
Nonstructural Earthquake in 1985.
Damage: A Practical Guide.
Third Edition
FEMA 74-FM Earthquake Hazard 2005 Includes three types of details: Non-Engineered, Prescriptive, and
Mitigation for Nonstructural Engineered. Contains more details than FEMA 74, along with a field
Elements, Field Manual data sheet based on the FEMA 74 checklist.
FEMA 150 Seismic Considerations: 1990 Published by the Federal Emergency Management Agency,
Health Care Facilities Washington, D.C.
FEMA 172 NEHRP Handbook of 1992 Chapters Relevant chapters include details for electrical cabinets, chimneys,
Techniques for the Seismic 5, 6 parapets, masonry partitions, raised access floors, and mechanical
Rehabilitation of Existing equipment.
Buildings
FEMA 178 NEHRP Handbook for the 1992 Section 10.5 Predecessor document to FEMA 310.
Seismic Evaluation of Existing
Buildings
FEMA 232 Homebuilders' Guide to 2006 Includes details based on the 1994 edition of FEMA 74.
Earthquake-Resistant Design
and Construction
FEMA 273 NEHRP Guidelines for the 1997 Predecessor document to FEMA 356.
Seismic Rehabilitation of
Buildings


FEMA 310 Handbook for the Seismic 1998 Sections 3.9, Predecessor document to SEI/ASCE 31-03. Relevant sections describe
Evaluation of Buildings - A 4.2.7, 4.8, evaluation procedures for existing nonstructural components.
Prestandard and Table 4- Includes comprehensive checklists of potential nonstructural hazards.
9
FEMA 356 Prestandard and 2000 Chapter 11 Successor document to FEMA 273/274, and predecessor to ASCE/SEI
Commentary for the Seismic 31-03. Relevant chapter describes design procedures for the
Rehabilitation of Buildings rehabilitation of existing nonstructural components, and a table
identifying nonstructural component types and their applicability to
different performance objectives.
FEMA 389 Communicating with Owners 2004
and Managers of New
Buildings on Earthquake
Risk: A Primer for Design
Professionals
FEMA 395 Incremental Seismic 2003 Includes a table of "Nonstructural Seismic Performance
Rehabilitation of School Improvements" (page C-21) that lists possible seismic performance
Buildings (K-12): Providing improvements that could be undertaken on nonstructural
Protection to People and components common to school occupancies.
Buildings
Rehabilitation of Hospital Improvements" (page C-23) that lists possible seismic performance
Buildings: Providing improvements that could be undertaken on nonstructural
Protection to People and components common to hospital occupancies.
Buildings
Rehabilitation of Office Improvements" (page C-24) that lists possible seismic performance
Protection to People and components common to office occupancies.
Buildings


Rehabilitation of Multifamily Improvements" (page C-22) that lists possible seismic performance
Apartment Buildings: improvements that could be undertaken on nonstructural
Providing Protection to components common to multifamily apartment occupancies.
People and Buildings
Rehabilitation of Retail Improvements" (page C-22) that lists possible seismic performance
Protection to People and components common to retail occupancies.
Buildings
Rehabilitation of Hotel and Improvements" (page C-23) that lists possible seismic performance
Motel Buildings improvements that could be undertaken on nonstructural
components common to hotel and motel occupancies.
FEMA 412 Installing Seismic Restraints 2002 Includes numerous elaborate details and many recommendations for
for Mechanical Equipment seismic restraint of mechanical equipment.
for Electrical Equipment seismic restraint of electrical equipment.
for Duct and Pipe seismic restraint of duct and piping components.
FEMA 424 Design Guide for Improving 2004 Includes pictures of nonstructural damage (pages 4-17 through 4-19,
School Safety in Earthquakes, 4-23, 4-24, 4-30, 4-31); a list of types of nonstructural components
Floods, and High Winds (page 4-59); graphics for ceilings, shelves, and walls (pages 4-60 and
4-61).
FEMA 433 Using HAZUS-MH for Risk 2004
Assessment: How-To Guide


FEMA 445 Next-Generation 2006 Section 4.2 Describes how performance-based seismic design guidelines will be
Performance-Based Seismic developed under the ATC-58 Project. Section 4.2 refers specifically to
Design Guidelines: Program the development of nonstructural performance products.
Plan for New and Existing
Buildings
FEMA 450 NEHRP Recommended 2004 Chapters 6, Provides criteria for the design and construction of structures to resist
Provisions for Seismic 6A, and earthquake ground motions. Relevant chapters include prescriptive
Regulations for New Commentary requirements for the design of architectural, mechanical, electrical
Buildings and Other and piping components.
Structures, Part 1 and 2:
Provisions and Commentary
FEMA 452 A How-To Guide to Mitigate 2005
Potential Terrorist Attacks
Against Buildings
FEMA 454 Designing for Earthquakes: A 2006 Section 6.6, Discussion of code issues including nonstructural issues. Contains a
Manual for Architects Chapter 9 collection of photos and generic details borrowed from various
sources including: FEMA 74; details developed for the Lawrence
Livermore National Lab; and the SMACNA Guidelines. Includes a
discussion on the need for systems engineering, considering all parts
of the building as a whole. Provides a checklist (Table 9-3) showing
allocation of design responsibilities for nonstructural systems and
components.


FEMA 460 Seismic Considerations for 2005 Includes: a review of the performance of storage racks in past
Steel Storage Racks Located earthquakes; a history of the development of codes and standards
in Areas Accessible to the used for storage rack design; current storage rack design practices;
Public guidance on recommended performance goals and design
requirements for storage racks; guidelines for
implementation/responsibilities associated with the specification,
procurement, and installation of pallet storage racks; suggested
guidance for securing contents; recommendations for operations and
use; suggested guidance for quality assurance programs; a discussion
of current and past storage rack research and testing; suggestions for
post-earthquake inspections; and proposed modifications to seismic
design provisions and standards for racks.
FEMA 461 Interim Protocols for 2007 Provides an interim protocol for testing of building components to
Determining Seismic establish their performance capability in the form of fragility functions.
Performance Characteristics Fragility functions are used to assess the seismic performance of
of Structural and individual components, systems incorporating these components, and
Nonstructural Components buildings containing these systems and components that are subjected
to earthquake shaking. Protocols are not intended for seismic
performance qualification testing of nonstructural components
required by the building code, although the loading protocols could
be used for that purpose.
FEMA 577 Design Guide for Improving 2007
Hospital Safety in
Earthquakes, Floods, and
High Winds: Providing
Protection to People and
Buildings
FEMA 582 Design Guide for Improving Future
Commercial Buildings Safety
in Earthquakes, Floods, and
High Winds


John Wiley & Sons, Earthquakes, an Architect's 1990 Target audience is architects. Written by H.J. Lagorio. Published by
Inc. Guide to Nonstructural John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York, New York.
Seismic Hazards
OCIPEP Seismic Hazard Assessment 2002 Contains figures and photos from various sources, including FEMA 74.
(Canada) and Mitigation for Buildings’ Includes damage photos from 1999 Chi Chi, Taiwan Earthquake:
Functional and Operational damage to rooftop equipment (page 19); collapse of free-standing
Components: A Canadian non-structural wall (page 20); and damage to sprinkler systems.
Perspective Prepared by the Department of Civil Engineering, University of
Ottowa, for the Office of Critical Infrastructure Protection and
Emergency Preparedness (OCIPEP), Ontario, Canada.
Oregon Emergency Earthquake Preparedness 2004 Focuses on office and warehouse occupancies, with special attention
Management and Mitigation Guidance for to storage racks. Includes photos and guidance including shrink-wrap
Oregon State Agency Offices and netting to mitigate potential falling hazards. Provides some
and Warehouses specific information on performance of furniture by specific vendors
(Hayworth, Steelcase, and Artmet).
Pan American Principles of Disaster 2000 Chapter 3 Includes guidance on assessing and mitigating seismic vulnerabilities
Health Mitigation in Health Facilities of nonstructural components. Published by the Pan American Health
Organization Organization, Regional Office of the World Health Organization,
Washington, D.C.
Salt Lake City Seismic Design Criteria of 2001 Developed under a FEMA “Project Impact” Grant. Intended for use
School District Nonstructural Systems For on new school design projects and seismic retrofit projects in the Salt
New School Facilities And Lake City School District. Establishes minimum design procedures,
Existing School Facilities general detailing requirements, design approval procedures, and
construction inspection procedures for nonstructural items. The
design engineer or architect is responsible for development of project
specific nonstructural details. Some requirements exceed the
minimum standards given in the Uniform Building Code (UBC).


Seattle Public School Facilities Manual: 2000 Includes detailed inventory form and details not included in FEMA
Schools Nonstructural Protection 74.
Guide. Safer Schools,
Earthquake Hazards,
Nonstructural. Second
Edition
University of UC Berkeley: Q-Brace 2005 Guidelines developed for University of California, Berkeley campus
California, Berkeley Quake Bracing Guidelines facilities. Includes detailed solutions for contents identifying vendor
supplied products or size of hardware to use.
USACERL Seismic Mitigation for 1998 Presents simple methods for reducing the seismic vulnerability of
TR-98/34 Equipment at Army Medical equipment at Army medical centers. Illustrations, observations, and
Centers recommendations are based on examples from Madigan Army
Medical Center (MAMC). Concerns about particular well-anchored
critical medical equipment are presented. Published by the U.S.
Army Construction Engineering Research Laboratories.
USACE, Engineering Seismic Protection for Presentation on procedures to design seismic supports of equipment,
and Support Mechanical Equipment piping, and ducts; includes force coefficients and methods to
Center calculate forces. Also includes a list of references useful as guidelines
for the design. Available from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers at
http://www.dtic.mil/ndia/2005triservice/track16/stut.pdf.
VISCMA Understanding the 2000 IBC 2005 Available on the Vibration Isolation and Seismic Control
Code (Architectural Manufacturers Association website at
Components and Equipment http://www.viscma.com/articles.htm
Restraint)
VISCMA The Pitfalls of Combining 2003 Explains problems associated with utilizing both internal and external
Internal & External isolation in equipment. Shows that performance is better if only
Equipment Isolation external isolation is used. Available on the Vibration Isolation and
Seismic Control Manufacturers Association website at
http://www.viscma.com/articles.htm

Table B-3 Nonproprietary Details and Other Resources for Nonstructural Components (continued)
Resource Type Title Comments
Number/Source Date Sections
ASHRAE /SMACNA Non-proprietary Seismic Restraint 2002 Provides technical information for design and installation
Details Applications CD-ROM of seismic restraints for HVAC equipment, piping, and
ducts. Includes representative bracing details, layout
examples, and tables. Consists of portions of the
following documents: SMACNA's Seismic Restraint
Manual: Guidelines for Mechanical Systems; ASHRAE's
Handbook - HVAC Applications (2003); and ASHRAE's A
Practical Guide to Seismic Restraint. Produced by the
American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-
Conditioning Engineers, Inc. and the Sheet Metal and Air
Conditioning Contractors' National Association.
ATC-38 Damage ATC-38 2001 10-page form and instructions that provides standardized
Inventory Form Postearthquake damage percentages and standardized codes for ceilings
Building Performance and partitions. Available with the ATC-38 Project report,
Assessment Form and or on the EERI website at http://www.eeri.org/
Surveyor Instructions
Dartmouth College Sample Dartmouth College 2004 Specification for the installation of equipment at
Specification Design & Construction Dartmouth College. Available at
Guidelines, http://www.dartmouth.edu/~opdc/pdfs/15240.pdf
Section 15240
Seismic Restraint and
Vibration Control
DGS, DSA Guide and Guide and Checklist 2003 Identifies potential hazards associated with nonstructural
(California ) Checklist for Nonstructural components and provides recommendations to mitigate
Earthquake Hazards in hazards. Includes typical details and a nonstructural
California Schools earthquake hazards checklist. Published by the California
State Department of General Services, Division of the
State Architect, and the Governer’s Office of Emergency
Services, Sacramento, California.

DOISSP Non-proprietary Nonstructural Hazards 2003 Contains guidance gathered from various sources, both
Details Rehabilitation public and private sources. Includes both proprietary
Guidelines; Vol. I; and non-proprietary details. Published by the
Guidelines Usage, Department of the Interior Bureau of Reclamation,
Architectural, Seismic Safety Program (DOISSP), Washington, D.C.
Mechanical, Electrical,
Plumbing
DOISSP Non-proprietary Nonstructural Hazards 2003 Contains guidance gathered from various sources, both
Details Rehabilitation public and private sources. Includes both proprietary
Guidelines; Vol. II; and non-proprietary details. Published by the
Furnishings, Interior Department of the Interior Bureau of Reclamation,
Equipment, Seismic Safety Program (DOISSP), Washington, D.C.
Miscellaneous
Components, Mobile
Homes, Manufactured
Homes, FEMA 273,
FEMA 310, FEMA 178,
& ASCE 31-xx Excerpts
EERI Damage EERI Reconnaissance/ 2000 2-page form consisting of broad categories, several
Inventory Form Clearinghouse Report subcategories, and blank lines to report damage and gather
Form - Architectural damage statistics.
and Nonstructural
Elements
FEMA Non-proprietary Final Report, 2004 Based on FEMA Region X Earthquake Hazard Mitigation
Details Nonstructural Handbook for Public Facilities, 2002. Includes
Earthquake Mitigation flowcharts, step-by-step procedures and some details.
Guidance Manual Divides nonstructural components into four groups:
contents, exterior building elements, interior building
elements, and building utilities. Prepared by URS
Group, Inc. for FEMA.
FEMA Region X Non-proprietary Earthquake Hazard 2002 Available at http://www.conservationtech.com/FEMA-
Details Mitigation Handbook WEB/FEMA-subweb-EQ/index.htm
for Public Facilities

FEMA 74 Non-proprietary Reducing the Risks of 1994 Successor document to previous editions of FEMA 74,
Details Nonstructural first published in 1985.
Earthquake Damage: A
Practical Guide. Third
Edition
FEMA 74 FM Non-proprietary FEMA 74 Field Manual 2005 Includes three types of details: Non-Engineered,
Details Prescriptive, and Engineered. Contains more details than
FEMA 74, along with a field data sheet based on the
FEMA 74 checklist.
FEMA 172 Non-proprietary NEHRP Handbook of 1992 Chapters Relevant chapters include details for electrical cabinets,
Details Techniques for the 5, 6 chimneys, parapets, masonry partitions, raised access
Seismic Rehabilitation floors, and mechanical equipment.
of Existing Buildings
FEMA 412 Non-proprietary Installing Seismic 2002 Includes numerous elaborate details and many
Details Restraints for recommendations for seismic restraint of mechanical
Mechanical Equipment equipment.
Details Restraints for Electrical recommendations for seismic restraint of electrical
Equipment equipment.
Details Restraints for Duct and recommendations for seismic restraint of duct and piping
Pipe components.
FEMA 424 Photos, Damage Design Guide for 2004 Includes pictures of nonstructural damage (pages 4-17
Improving School through 4-19, 4-23, 4-24, 4-30, 4-31); a list of types of
Safety in Earthquakes, nonstructural components (page 4-59); graphics for
Floods, and High ceilings, shelves, and walls (pages 4-60 and 4-61).
Winds

FEMA 454 Non-proprietary Designing for 2006 Section 6.6, Discussion of code issues including nonstructural issues.
Details Earthquakes: A Chapter 9 Contains a collection of photos and generic details
Manual for Architects borrowed from various sources including: FEMA 74;
details developed for the Lawrence Livermore National
Lab; and the SMACNA Guidelines. Includes a discussion
on the need for systems engineering, considering all parts
of the building as a whole. Provides a checklist (Table 9-
3) showing allocation of design responsibilities for
nonstructural systems and components.
Los Alamos Sample Section 22 0548 2006 Specification for the anchorage of equipment at Los
National Laboratory Specification Vibration and Seismic Alamos National Lab. Available at
Controls for Plumbing, http://engstandards.lanl.gov/conspec/pdf/22_0548R0.pdf
Piping, and Equipment
OCIPEP Photos, Damage Seismic Hazard 2002 Contains figures and photos from various sources,
(Canada) Assessment and including FEMA 74. Includes damage photos from 1999
Mitigation for Chi Chi, Taiwan Earthquake: damage to rooftop
Buildings' Functional equipment (page 19); collapse of free-standing non-
and Operational structural wall (page 20); and damage to sprinkler
Components: A systems. Prepared by the Department of Civil
Canadian Perspective Engineering, University of Ottowa, for the Office of
Critical Infrastructure Protection and Emergency
Preparedness (OCIPEP), Ontario, Canada.
Oregon Emergency Non-proprietary Earthquake 2004 Focuses on office and warehouse occupancies, with
Management Details Preparedness and special attention to storage racks. Includes photos and
Mitigation Guidance guidance including shrink-wrap and netting to mitigate
for Oregon State potential falling hazards. Provides some specific
Agency Offices and information on performance of furniture by specific
Warehouses vendors (Hayworth, Steelcase, and Artmet).

PEER 2003/05 Taxonomy and Response Assessment 2003 Proposes a taxonomy (classification) of nonstructural
Nonstructural of Nonstructural elements by functionality, modes of failure, acceleration-
Damage Building Elements sensitive or drift-sensitive response parameter, and
Inventory Form repercussions of damage. Provides damageability, cost, and
loss data for 200 elements. Includes a Nonstructural
Damage Inventory Form used following the Nisqually
Earthquake.
PEER 2003/12 Non-proprietary Implementation 2003 Presents case studies for University of California Berkeley
Details Manual for the Seismic campus labs. Suggests format for User's Manual that could
Protection of be used to help occupants install do-it-yourself details for a
Laboratory Contents: particular facility.
Format and Case
Studies
PEER 2005/03 Taxonomy A Taxonomy of 2005 Provides a detailed taxonomy (classification) of nonstructural
Building Components components. Each component is assigned a unique
for Performance-Based identification number. The list differentiates between
Earthquake anchored and unanchored versions of the same item.
Engineering
Sandia Sample Special Specification Sample specification for the anchorage of equipment at
Specification Section 13085S - Sandia (16 pages). Includes lists of equipment, detailed
Seismic Protection requirements, specific instructions for some items, load
limits, and member sizes.
Seattle Public Non-proprietary School Facilities 2000 Includes detailed inventory form and details not included
Schools Details Manual: Nonstructural in FEMA 74.
Protection Guide.
Safer Schools,
Earthquake Hazards,
Nonstructural. Second
Edition
Southern California Photos, Damage Nonstructural Issues in 2000 Photos of damage in school facilities in Southern California.
Earthquake Center Public Schools - "Stairs Available at
to Nowhere" http://www.scec.org/instanet/00news/images/mcgavin/sld00
1.htm

University of Non-proprietary UC Berkeley: Q-Brace 2005 Guidelines developed for University of California,
California, Berkeley Details Quake Bracing Berkeley campus facilities. Includes detailed solutions for
Guidelines contents identifying vendor supplied products or size of
hardware to use.
USACERL Photos, Seismic Mitigation for 1998 Presents simple methods for reducing the seismic
TR-98/34 Mitigation Equipment at Army vulnerability of equipment at Army medical centers.
Medical Centers Illustrations, observations, and recommendations are
based on examples from Madigan Army Medical Center
(MAMC). Concerns about particular well-anchored
critical medical equipment are presented. Published by
the U.S. Army Construction Engineering Research
Laboratories.
VISCMA 101-07 Sample Seismic Restraint 2007 Sample specification for seismic restraint of mechanical,
Specification Specification electrical and plumbing equipment. Published by the
Guidelines Vibration Isolation and Seismic Control Manufacturer’s
for Mechanical, Association, Wayne, Pennsylvania.
Electrical And
Plumbing Systems

Table B-4 Proprietary Details and Products for the Protection of Nonstructural Components (continued)
Product
Source/Vendor Product or Service Description Comments
Chatsworth Seismic Chatsworth Seismic Protection Variety of seismic protection products. Available at
Protection Products Products http://www.twacomm.com/catalog/dept_id_644.htm
Flexhead Flexible fire protection Proprietary flexible connection for sprinklers heads. Available at http://www.flexhead.com/
Hilti Concrete anchors and hardware Information on product selection, different installation systems, and load data. Available at
www.hilti.com
International International Seismic Application Focuses exclusively on mechanical, electrical, plumbing equipment and piping. Includes load
Seismic Application Technology (ISAT) Applications and tables and details showing use of products. Available at www.isatsb.com
Technology Design Manual
International 2003 IBC Specification - Seismic Sample specification available at www.isatsb.com

Seismic Application Restraint of Suspended Utilities
Technology
Kinetics Noise Kinetics noise control seismic Brochure presents restraint systems that serve to limit the movement of equipment during a
Control restraint capabilities seismic event. Available at
http://www.kineticsnoise.com/hvac/pdf/seismic%20restraint%20capabilities.pdf
Loos & Co Proprietary details approved by Includes collections of details, such as: Section 7, Sway Brace Components, Installation
OSHPD for use in California hospitals Instructions and Details. Available at www.earthquakebrace.com
Mason Industries Details, Handbook, and online Available at http://www.mason-ind.com/html/about.htm or

resources http://209.200.80.33/html/seismic_engineering_index.htm
Metraflex Thermal and seismic expansion joints Available at http://www.metraflex.com/seismic_met.php

for pipe
Pacific Seismic ASCE 25-97 listed seismic actuated Gas shut off valves and other seismic actuated devices. Available at
Products valves for residential, commercial http://www.psp4gasoff.com/aboutpsp.htm
and industrial applications
Ridg-U-Rak Isolation system for storage racks Isolation test of storage racks, both with and without transverse isolation. Movie of test
available on website. Available at http://www.ridgurak.com

Product
Technotes Issue Base isolation system for museum “Seismic Protection of Museum Artifacts using Base Isolation,” Bujar Myslimaj, Ph.D., P.Eng.,
No. 21 pieces or equipment Senior Specialist, Scott Gamble B.Sc., P.Eng., Principal, Ray Sinclair, Ph.D., Principal.
RWDI Consulting Available at http://go.rwdi.com/technotes/t21.pdf
Engineers and
Scientists
Safety Central Earthquake safety fasteners, furniture Available at www.safetycentral.com
straps, and emergency preparedness
supplies
Secure Quick Secure Quick Seismic Fastening Consists of steel cable, wall bracket, and cable fasteners for attaching furniture to wood stud
System walls. Also provided on website, "Why You Should Not Use Plastic Tabs Devices, Velcro,
Hook and Loop, Nylon Straps or Metal Braces." Available at www.quakesecure.com
Secure-It PC Security Hardware Provides products to secure computer equipment. Intended as protection against theft, but
security cables and hardware could also be adapted as seismic restraint for other desktop
items. Available at http://www.secure-it.com/shop/index.php/cPath/21
Seismic Restraints Hardware and systems for contents: Available at www.seismicrestraints.co.nz

NZ collectables, home, office, school,
hospital, lab, and technology.
Seismic Solutions Seismic restraint for ducts, pipes, Services include structural design, labor and materials for installation. Available at
cable trays, and equipment using http://www.seismicsolutionsinc.com/details.html
cables
Simpson Strong-Tie Provides load rated straps and ties Includes link for DIY (Do-it-Yourself) projects that illustrate the use of various connectors and
adhesives, which could help with some nonstructural installations. Available at
http://www.strongtie.com/products/categories/diy.html
Strand Earthquake Engineering and products for Distributors for GeoSIG, Pacific Seismic Products, Metraflex, and WorkSafe Technologies.
Consultants nonstructural seismic mitigation

Product
Taylor Devices, Inc. Viscous dampers for equipment Available at http://www.taylordevices.com/SeismicDampers.htm
protection
The Preparedness Earthquake safety fasteners, furniture Available at www.preparedness.com
Center straps, and emergency preparedness
supplies
USG "Seismic Ceiling Resource Center" Includes a series of technical notes and guidelines related to ceilings, ceiling tracks, and
shadow moldings. Available at www.usg.com and www.seismicceilings.com
Viking Flexible connections for sprinkler Available at http://www.vikingcorp.com/databook/sprinklers/spk_accessories/070605.pdf

heads
WorkSafe System for base-isolation of IsoBaseTM Seismic Isolation Platform, available at http://www.worksafetech.com/
Technologies equipment
WorkSafe Large variety of products for seismic Available at http://www.worksafetech.com/

Technologies protection of nonstructural
components in offices, data centers,
hospitals, laboratories, and
warehouses.

Table B-5 Recent and Ongoing Research Related to Nonstructural Components (continued)
Document Publication
Number/Source Title Author(s) Date Comments
8NCEE-002034 Enhancing the Resilience Filiatrault, A., 2006 Paper at 8th National Conference on Earthquake Engineering, San
of Acute Care Facilities: et al. Francisco, California.
An Overview of MCEER
Research
13WCEE-00295 Overturning Criteria for Boroschek, 2004 Theoretical discussion of the effect of non-symmetric bodies subjected to
Non-Anchored Non- R.L., and overturning. Paper at 13th World Conference on Earthquake
Symmetric Rigid Bodies Romo, D. Engineering, Vancouver, B.C., Canada.
ATC-29 Proceedings of a Seminar 1992 Includes information on seismic design, performance, and research
on Seismic Design and pertaining to nonstructural components. Funded by the National Center
Performance of for Earthquake Engineering Research and the National Science
Equipment and Foundation.
Nonstructural Elements
in Buildings and
Industrial Structures
ATC-29-1 Proceedings of a Seminar 1998 Includes information on seismic design, performance, and research
on Seismic Design, pertaining to nonstructural components. Funded by the National Center
Retrofit, and for Earthquake Engineering Research and the National Science
Performance of Foundation.
Nonstructural
Components
ATC-29-2 Proceedings of Seminar 2003 Focused principally on nonstructural components and systems in facilities
on Seismic Design, with critical functions. Includes information on the state of the art, state
Performance, and of the practice, and efforts needed to improve both. Prepared in
Retrofit of Nonstructural cooperation with the Multidisciplinary Center for Earthquake Engineering
Components in Critical Research, and funded by the National Science Foundation.
Facilities

ATC-38 Database on the 2001 Effort to correlate structural and nonstructural damage with ground
Performance of motion parameters recorded during the 1994 Northridge Earthquake.
Structures Near Strong- Report includes a CD-ROM with Access database, Excel files, text files,
Motion Recordings: and collection of over 500 photos. Database includes some
1994 Northridge, nonstructural damage data in the following categories: "cladding
California, Earthquake separation or damage," “partitions damage," "windows damage," "lights
and ceilings damage," and "Building Contents Damage." Most photos do
not show damage, but provide an overview of the building from street.
Report also includes the ATC-38 Postearthquake Building Performance
Assessment Form and Surveyor Instructions. Nonstructural categories
include Exterior Cladding/Glazing; Partitions; Ceilings; Plumbing,
Electrical, Lighting, HVAC; Fire Protection; Major Fixed Equipment,
Elevators, Chimneys, and Unusual Contents.
ATC-58 Proceedings: Mini- 2005 ATC-58 Project workshop focusing on the selection of a nonstructural
Workshop/Invited component taxonomy, and identifying nonstructural components that are
Meeting on the significant to the estimation of casualty, direct economic, and downtime
Identification of losses from earthquake damage.
Nonstructural
Components of
Significance
ATC-58 Guidelines for Seismic 2007 Interim report on methodology for seismic performance assessment of
Performance Assessment new and existing buildings. Methodology will be applicable to most
of Buildings, ATC-58 common building types designed and constructed in the United States
35% Complete Draft within the past 50 years, and will estimate losses in terms of causalities,
direct economic losses, and downtime as a result of earthquake damage.
Loss estimation is based on fragility curves, which will be provided for
both structural and nonstructural components.
FEMA 349 Action Plan for 2000 Predecessor document to FEMA 445. Prepared by the Earthquake
Performance Based Engineering Research Institute for FEMA.
Seismic Design

FEMA 445 Next-Generation 2006 Section 4.2 Describes how performance-based seismic design guidelines will be
Performance-Based developed under the ATC-58 Project. Section 4.2 refers specifically to
Seismic Design the development of nonstructural performance products.
Guidelines: Program
Plan for New and
Existing Buildings
EERI Learning from Porter, K. 2002 Taken from an EERI Invitational Workshop: An Action Plan to Develop
Earthquakes: a Survey of Earthquake Damage and Loss Data Protocols, September 19-20, 2002,
Surveys. Doubletree Hotel, Pasadena, California.
MCEER ASHRAE Consortium Future MCEER’s ASHRAE Consortium is beginning Phase II studies involving
Investigates Performance shake table testing of a rigidly anchored and vibration isolated roof-top
of Roof-Top Air air handling unit. Testing will begin in March 2008 in the Structural
Handling Unit Engineering and Earthquake Simulation Laboratory (SEESL) at the
University at Buffalo. Studies will focus on developing a specialized
numerical model capable of analyzing the seismic response of various
types of HVAC equipment mounted on ASHRAE-type isolation/restraint
systems.
MCEER Seismic Vulnerability and T.T. Soong 2003 Addresses seismic vulnerability and protection strategies. Divides
Protection of and D. Lopez nonstructural items into 3 categories: Unrestrained Nonstructural
Nonstructural Garcia Components; Restrained Nonstructural components; and Nonstructural
Components Systems, which consist of systems of nonstructural components. Cites
examples of fragility curves developed for each category. Contains
discussion of both damping systems and isolation systems as protection
strategies. Ends with recommendations for 6 tasks: (1) Develop a Catalog
of Nonstructural Components, Systems and Contents; (2) Identify
Nonstructural Performance Measures; (3) Identify Engineering Demand
Parameters; (4) Develop Damage Database; (5) Establish Comprehensive
Testing and Certification Protocols; and (6) Performance Evaluation Case
Studies/Test bed Checks.

MCEER-99-0014 MCEER Nonstructural Kao, A., and 1999 Database of earthquake damage to nonstructural elements.
Damage Database Soong, T.T.
MCEER-05-0005 “Simulation of Strong Wanitkorkul, 2005 Published by the Multidisciplinary Center for Earthquake Engineering
Ground Motions for A. and Research, University at Buffalo, State University of New York.
Seismic Fragility Filiatrault, A.
Evaluation of
Nonstructural
Components in
Hospitals”
MCEER-06-0001 Seismic Fragility of Badillo- 2006 Report on testing of Armstrong ceiling systems. Concludes that
Suspended Ceiling Almaraz, compression bars and retention clips help in the behavior of ceilings, and
Systems Whittaker, that undersized tiles are a detriment.
Reinhorn,
Cimellaro
PEER 1998/05 Rocking Response and N. Makris, Y. 1998 Published by the Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center,
Overturning of Roussos Berkeley, California.
Equipment Under
Horizontal Pulse-Type
Motions
PEER 1999/06 Rocking Response and N. Makris, J. 1999 Results of shake table testing.
Overturning of Anchored Zhang
Equipment under
Seismic Excitations
PEER 2001/14 Rocking Response of N. Makris, C. 2001 Example of PEER research related to Lifelines. PEER has done series of
Equipment Anchored to Black tests funded by PG&E on electrical substation equipment including rigid
a Base Foundation bus connectors, flexible bus connectors, transformer bushings, and heavy
substation equipment.

PEER 2002/01 Nonstructural Loss M. Comerio, 2002 Case studies of loss estimation for five University of California Berkeley
Estimation: The UC J. Stallmeyer campus buildings. Includes a table (Table 10) showing costs assumed for
Berkeley Case Study many types of equipment, and photos of lab equipment.
PEER 2002/05 Guidelines, Filiatrault, A., 2001 Contents include chapters on nonstructural earthquake damage.
Specifications, and Christopoulus, Nonstructural items are divided into 5 groups: contents; building service
Seismic Performance C, and equipment; building utilization equipment; interior architectural
Characterization of Stearns, C. elements; and exterior architectural elements. Overview of various design
Nonstructural Building guidelines and inventory of previous analytical and experimental studies.
Components and Includes recommendations, and comprehensive list of references.
Equipment
PEER 2003/05 Response Assessment of S. Taghavi, E. 2003 Proposes a taxonomy (classification) of nonstructural elements by
Nonstructural Building Miranda functionality, modes of failure, acceleration-sensitive or drift-sensitive
Elements response parameter, and repercussions of damage. Provides damageability,
cost, and loss data for 200 elements. Includes a Nonstructural Damage
Inventory Form used following the Nisqually Earthquake.
PEER 2003/12 Implementation Manual W. Holmes, 2003 Presents case studies for University of California Berkeley campus labs.
for the Seismic M. Comerio Suggests format for User's Manual that could be used to help occupants install
Protection of Laboratory do-it-yourself details for a particular facility.
Contents: Format and
Case Studies
PEER 2005/03 A Taxonomy of Building Porter, Keith 2005 Provides a detailed taxonomy (classification) of nonstructural components.
Components for Each component is assigned a unique identification number. The list
Performance-Based differentiates between anchored and unanchored versions of the same item.
Earthquake Engineering
PEER 2005/05 Performance S. Chaudhuri 2005
Characterization of and T.
Bench- and Shelf- Hutchinson|
Mounted Equipment
PEER 2005/07 Experimental and D. 2005 Shake table testing of equipment.
Analytical Studies on the Konstantinidis,
Seismic Response of N. Makris
Freestanding and
Anchored

Laboratory Equipment
PEER 2005/12 PEER Test bed Study on M. Comerio 2005 Test bed performance assessment of the UC Science Building linking
a Laboratory Building: performance of contents to operational failure. Shows the
Exercising Seismic interdependence of building structure, systems, and contents in
Performance Assessment performance assessment, and highlights where further research is
needed.
SUNY Buffalo Nonstructural Future Specialized equipment for testing nonstructural components. University
Components Simulator at Buffalo's NEES (UB-NEES) facility is commissioning a dedicated
(NCS). Nonstructural Component Simulator (NCS). The NCS is a modular and
versatile two-level platform for experimental performance evaluation of
nonstructural components and equipment under realistic full scale floor
motions. NCS can provide the dynamic stroke necessary to replicate full-
scale displacements, velocities and accelerations at the upper levels of
multi-story buildings during earthquake shaking. Both displacement
sensitive and acceleration sensitive nonstructural components and
equipment can be experimentally evaluated under full-scale floor
motions to understand, quantify and control their seismic response.
SUNY Buffalo, “Shake Table Testing of Filiatrault, A. 2004 Published by the University at Buffalo, State University of New York,
CSEE-SEESL-2004- Frazier Industrial Storage and Buffalo, New York.
02 Pallet Racks” Wanitkorkul,
A.
SUNY Buffalo, “Seismic Qualification By Filiatrault, A. 2005 Published by the University at Buffalo, State University of New York,
CSEE-SEESL-2005- Shake Table Testing of a and Buffalo, New York.
01 Centrifugal Liquid Chiller Wanitkorkul,
according to AC-156 A.
Testing Protocol”

SUNY Buffalo, “Shake Table Testing of Filiatrault, A., 2005 Published by the University at Buffalo, State University of New York,
CSEE-SEESL-2005- Ridg-U-Rak Rigid Based Wanitkorkul, Buffalo, New York.
03 and Ridg-U-Rak Patent A. and Seo, J-
Pending Base Isolated M.
Industrial Storage Racks”
SUNY Buffalo, “Seismic Qualification of Filiatrault, A. 2005 Published by the University at Buffalo, State University of New York,
CSEE-SEESL-2005- a Centrifugal Liquid and Buffalo, New York.
05 Chiller by Shake Table Wanitkorkul,
Testing" A.
SUNY Buffalo, “Experimental Seismic Fathali, S. and 2006 Published by the University at Buffalo, State University of New York,
CSEE-SEESL-2006- Performance Evaluation Filiatrault, A. Buffalo, New York.
05 of ASRAE-Type
Isolation/Restraint
Systems”
CSEE-SEESL-2006- Ridg-U-Rak Rigid Based and Buffalo, New York.
07 and Ridg-U-Rak Patent Wanitkorkul,
Pending Base Isolated A.
Industrial Storage Racks:
Production Unit Testing”
CSEE-SEESL-2006- Ridg-U-Rak Rigid Based and Buffalo, New York.
19 and Ridg-U-Rak Patent Wanitkorkul,
Pending Base Isolated A.
Industrial Storage Racks:
Final Production Unit
Testing”
University of Chile Controlled Overturning Boroschek, Review of test results for equipment on an inclined surface. Results show
of Unanchored Rigid R.L., and that an incline can force overturning to occur in a preferred direction.
Bodies Iruretagoyena, For example, a 3-degree angle will result in an 89% probability that
A. blocks will overturn in that direction. Could be useful information for
keeping contents on shelves.

References
ASCE, 2006a, Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and Other Structures,
ASCE/SEI 7-05, American Society of Civil Engineers, Reston,
Virginia.
ASCE, 2006b, Seismic Rehabilitation of Existing Buildings, ASCE/SEI
41-06, American Society of Civil Engineers, Reston, Virginia.
ASCE, 2003, Seismic Evaluation of Existing Buildings, SEI/ASCE 31-03,
American Society of Civil Engineers, Reston, Virginia.
ASCE, 1996, Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and Other Structures,
ASCE 7-95, American Society of Civil Engineers, Reston, Virginia.
ASTM C635/C635M-07, Standard Specification for the Manufacture,
Performance, and Testing of Metal Suspension Systems for
Acoustical Tile and Lay-in Panel Ceilings, ASTM International,
West Conshohocken, Pennsylvania.
ASTM C636/C636M-06, Standard Practice for Installation of Metal Ceiling
Suspension Systems for Acoustical Tile and Lay-In Panels, ASTM
International, West Conshohocken, Pennsylvania.
ATC, 2007, Guidelines for the Seismic Performance Assessment of
Buildings, ATC-58 Report - 35% Draft, prepared by the Applied
Technology Council for the Federal Emergency Management
Agency, Redwood City, California.
ATC, 2003, Proceedings of Seminar on Seismic Design, Performance, and
Retrofit of Nonstructural Components in Critical Facilities, ATC-29-
2 Report, prepared by the Applied Technology Council and the
Multidisciplinary Center for Earthquake Engineering Research, for
the National Science Foundation, Redwood City, California.
ATC, 2000, Database on the Performance of Structures Near Strong-Motion
Recordings: 1994 Northridge, California, Earthquake, ATC-38
Report, prepared by the Applied Technology Council for the U.S.
Geological Survey, Southern California Earthquake Center,
California Office of Emergency Services, and Institute for Business
and Home Safety, Redwood City, California.
ATC, 1998, Proceedings of Seminar on Seismic Design, Retrofit and
Performance of Nonstructural Components, ATC-29-1 Report,
ATC-69 References C-1

prepared by the Applied Technology Council for the National Center
for Earthquake Engineering Research and the National Science
Foundation, Redwood City, California.
ATC, 1992, Proceedings of Seminar and Workshop on Seismic Design and
Performance of Equipment and Nonstructural Elements in Buildings
and Industrial Structures, ATC-29 Report, prepared by the Applied
Technology Council for the National Center for Earthquake
Engineering Research and the National Science Foundation,
Redwood City, California.
Bachman, Robert E., 2004, “The ATC 58 Project, Plan for Nonstructural
Components,” Performance-Based Seismic Design: Concepts and
Implementation, Proceedings of the International Workshop, Bled,
Slovenia, 28 June-1 July 2004, PEER Report 2004/05, Pacific
Earthquake Engineering Research Center, University of California,
Berkeley, California.
BOCA, 1999, National Building Code, Building Officials and Code
Administrators International, Inc., Country Club Hills, Illinois.
BSSC, 2004, NEHRP Recommended Provisions for Seismic Regulations for
New Buildings and Other Structures - 2003 Edition, FEMA 450
Report, prepared by the Building Seismic Safety Council for the
Federal Emergency Management Agency, Washington, D.C.
New Buildings and Other Structures, FEMA 302 Report, prepared
by the Building Seismic Safety Council for the Federal Emergency
Management Agency, Washington, D.C.
New Buildings, FEMA 222A Report, prepared by the Building
Seismic Safety Council for the Federal Emergency Management
Agency, Washington, D.C.
BSSC, 1991, Recommended Provisions for the Development of Seismic
Regulations for New Buildings, FEMA 222 Report, prepared by the
Building Seismic Safety Council for the Federal Emergency
CISCA, 2004, Guidelines for Seismic Restraint for Direct-hung Suspended
Ceiling Assemblies (zones 3-4), Ceilings and Interior Systems
Construction Association, St. Charles, Illinois.
FEMA 74, 1994, Reducing the Risks of Nonstructural Earthquake Damage:
A Practical Guide, Third Edition, prepared by Wiss, Janey, Elstner
C-2 References ATC-69

Associates, Inc. for the Federal Emergency Management Agency,
Washington, D.C.
FEMA 412, 2002, Installing Seismic Restraints for Mechanical Equipment,
prepared by the Vibration Isolation and Seismic Control
Manufacturers Association for the Federal Emergency Management
FEMA 413, 2002, Installing Seismic Restraints for Electrical Equipment,
prepared by the Vibration Isolation and Seismic Control
Manufacturers Association for the Federal Emergency Management
FEMA 414, 2002, Installing Seismic Restraints for Duct and Pipe, prepared
by the Vibration Isolation and Seismic Control Manufacturers
Association for the Federal Emergency Management Agency,
Washington, D.C.
FEMA 445, 2006, Next-Generation Performance-based Seismic Design
Guidelines, Program Plan for New and Existing Buildings, prepared
by the Applied Technology Council for the Federal Emergency
FEMA 461, 2007, Interim Protocols for Determining Seismic Performance
Characteristics of Structural and Nonstructural Components,
prepared by the Applied Technology Council for the Federal
Emergency Management Agency, Washington, D.C.
ICBO, 1961, 1970, 1976, 1979, 1988, 1997, Uniform Building Code,
International Conference of Building Officials, Whittier, California.
ICC, 2006a, International Building Code, International Code Council,
Washington, D.C.
ICC, 2006b, International Existing Building Code, International Code
Council, Washington, D.C.
ICC, 2000, International Building Code, International Code Council,
Washington, D.C.
ICC-ES AC 156, 2004, Acceptance Criteria for Seismic Qualification by
Shake-Table Testing of Nonstructural Components and Systems,
International Code Council Evaluation Service, Whittier, California.
Kao, A., and Soong, T.T., 1999, Nonstructural Damage Database, Technical
Report MCEER-99-0014, Multidisciplinary Center for Earthquake
Engineering Research, Buffalo, New York.
ATC-69 References C-3

Kircher, Charles A., 2003, “It Makes Dollars and Sense to Improve
Nonstructural System Performance,” Proceedings of Seminar on
Seismic Design, Performance and Retrofit of Nonstructural
Components in Critical Facilities, ATC-29-2 Report, Applied
Technology Council, Redwood City, California.
Mayes, Ronald L. et al., 2005, “Comparative Seismic Performance of Four
Structural Systems,” SEAOC 2005 Convention Proceedings,
Structural Engineers Association of California, Sacramento,
California.
NFPA, 2007, Standard for the Installation of Sprinkler Systems, 2007
Edition, NFPA 13, National Fire Protection Association, Quincy,
Massachusetts.
PCBOC, 1937, Uniform Building Code, Pacific Coast Building Officials
Conference, Whittier, California.
Porter, Keith, 2005, A Taxonomy of Building Components for Performance-
Based Earthquake Engineering, PEER Report 2005/03, Pacific
Earthquake Engineering Research Center, University of California,
Berkeley, California.
Porter, Keith, 2002, “Learning from Earthquakes: a Survey of Surveys,”
EERI Invitational Workshop: An Action Plan to Develop Earthquake
Damage and Loss Data Protocols, September 19-20, 2002,
Doubletree Hotel, Pasadena, California, Earthquake Engineering
Research Institute, Oakland, California.
Reitherman, Robert, 1998, “The Need for Improvement in Post-Earthquake
Investigations of the Performance of Nonstructural Components,”
Proceedings of Seminar on Seismic Design, Retrofit and
Performance of Nonstructural Components, ATC-29-1 Report,
Applied Technology Council, Redwood City, California.
Reitherman, Robert et al., 1995, “Chapter 11, Nonstructural Damage,”
Earthquake Spectra, Supplement C to Volume 11, Northridge
Earthquake Reconnaissance Report, Vol. 1, Earthquake Engineering
Research Institute, Oakland, California.
Richter, C.F., 1957, Elementary Seismology, W. H. Freeman Co., San
Francisco, California.
SBCCI, 1999, Standard Building Code, Southern Building Code Congress
International, Birmingham, Alabama.
C-4 References ATC-69

Project Participants
Applied Technology Council – Task Order Management

Christopher Rojahn (Project Executive Director) William T. Holmes (Project Technical Monitor)
Applied Technology Council Rutherford & Chekene
201 Redwood Shores Parkway, Suite 240 55 Second Street, Suite 600
Redwood City, CA 94065 San Francisco, CA 94105
Jon A. Heintz (Project Quality Control Monitor)

201 Redwood Shores Parkway, Suite 240
Redwood City, CA 94065
FEMA Project Officer Subject Matter Expert

Cathleen M. Carlisle Barry Welliver
Dept. of Homeland Security – FEMA BHW Engineers L.L.C.
500 C Street SW 13065 South 132 East, Suite 210
Washington, DC 20008 Draper, UT 84020
Project Manager
Thomas R. McLane
2111 Wilson Blvd., Suite 700
Arlington, VA 22201
Project Management Committee

Maryann Phipps, Lead Technical Consultant James Carlson
Estructure Omaha Public Power District
8331 Kent Court Fort Calhoun Station
El Cerrito, CA 94530 13801 Buffalo Road
Springfield, NE 68059
Robert Bachman
Consulting Structural Engineer Eduardo A. Fierro
25152 La Estrada Drive BFP Engineers, Inc.
Laguna Niguel, CA 92677 1803 Oxford Street, Suite 2
Berkeley, CA 94709
ATC-69 Project Participants D-1

Richard Kirchner Cynthia L. Perry
Hawley Peterson & Snyder Architects BFP Engineers, Inc.
444 Castro Street, Suite 1000 1803 Oxford Street, Suite 2
Mountain View, CA 94041 Berkeley, CA 94709
Jon A. Heintz (ex-officio)
Project Review Panel

Tim P. Brown John R. Henry, P.E.
Bureau of Reclamation International Code Council, Inc.
Denver Federal Center P.O. Box 968
6th and Kipling, Building #67 Knights Landing, CA 95645
Denver, CO 80225
Steven Kuan*
Mary C. Comerio Office of Housing and Construction Standards
University of California, Berkeley P.O. Box 9844
Department of Architecture Stn Prov Govt, 5th Floor, 609 Broughton Street
382D Wurster Hall Victoria, BC V8W 9T2 CANADA
Berkeley, CA 94720-1800
Robert K. Reitherman
David Conover Consortium of Universities for Research in
International Code Council (ICC) Earthquake Engineering (CUREE)
500 New Jersey Ave. NW, Suite 600 1301 South 46th St., Building 420
Washington, DC 20001 Richmond, CA 94804
Doug Fitts, P. E. Jeffrey R. Soulages, P.E., S.E.

Fitts HVAC Consulting, LLC Strategic Facilities Technology Design (SFTD)
P. O. Box 16847 Intel Corporation
St. Louis, MO 63105 2501 NW 229th Street MS: RA1-220
Hillsboro, OR 97124
Michael J. Griffin, P.E.
CCS Group, Inc. William T. Holmes (ex-officio)
1415 Elbridge Payne Road, Suite 265 Christopher Rojahn (ex-officio)
Chesterfield, MO 63017
*ATC Board Contact
D-2 Project Participants ATC-69

Projects and Report Information
One of the primary purposes of the Applied ABSTRACT: This study evaluated the
Technology Council is to develop resource applicability and cost of the response spectrum
documents that translate and summarize useful approach to seismic analysis and design that
information to practicing engineers. This includes was proposed by various segments of the
the development of guidelines and manuals, as engineering profession. Specific building
well as the development of research designs, design procedures and parameter
recommendations for specific areas determined by values were evaluated for future application.
the profession. ATC is not a code development Eleven existing buildings of varying
organization, although ATC project reports often dimensions were redesigned according to the
serve as resource documents for the development procedures.
of codes, standards and specifications.
ATC-3: The report, Tentative Provisions for the
Applied Technology Council conducts Development of Seismic Regulations for Buildings
projects that meet the following criteria: (ATC-3-06), was funded by NSF and NBS. The
second printing of this report, which includes
1. The primary audience or benefactor is the
proposed amendments, is available through the
design practitioner in structural engineering.
ATC office. (Published 1978, amended 1982, 505
2. A cross section or consensus of engineering pages plus proposed amendments)
opinion is required to be obtained and
ABSTRACT: The tentative provisions in this
presented by a neutral source.
document represent the results of a concerted
1. The project fosters the advancement of effort by a multi-disciplinary team of 85
structural engineering practice. nationally recognized experts in earthquake
engineering. The provisions serve as the basis
Brief descriptions of completed ATC projects and
for the seismic provisions of the 1988 and
reports are provided below. Funding for projects
subsequent issues of the Uniform Building
is obtained from government agencies and tax-
Code and the NEHRP Recommended
deductible contributions from the private sector.
Provisions for the Development of Seismic
ATC-1: This project resulted in five papers that Regulation for New Building and Other
were published as part of Building Practices for Structures. The second printing of this
Disaster Mitigation, Building Science Series 46, document contains proposed amendments
proceedings of a workshop sponsored by the prepared by a joint committee of the Building
National Science Foundation (NSF) and the Seismic Safety Council (BSSC) and the NBS.
National Bureau of Standards (NBS). Available
ATC-3-2: The project, “Comparative Test
through the National Technical Information
Designs of Buildings Using ATC-3-06 Tentative
Service (NTIS), 5285 Port Royal Road,
Provisions”, was funded by NSF. The project
Springfield, VA 22151, as NTIS report No.
consisted of a study to develop and plan a program
COM-73-50188.
for making comparative test designs of the ATC-
ATC-2: The report, An Evaluation of a Response 3-06 Tentative Provisions. The project report was
Spectrum Approach to Seismic Design of written to be used by the Building Seismic Safety
Buildings, was funded by NSF and NBS and was Council in its refinement of the ATC-3-06
conducted as part of the Cooperative Federal Tentative Provisions.
Program in Building Practices for Disaster
ATC-3-4: The report, Redesign of Three
Mitigation. Available through the ATC office.
Multistory Buildings: A Comparison Using ATC-
(Published 1974, 270 Pages)
3-06 and 1982 Uniform Building Code Design
Provisions, was published under a grant from
ATC-69 ATC Projects and Report Information E-1

NSF. Available through the ATC office. presents construction details that do not
(Published 1984, 112 pages) require the designer to perform analytical
calculations, (4) suggests procedures for
ABSTRACT: This report evaluates the cost and
efficient plan-checking, and (5) presents
technical impact of using the 1978 ATC-3-06
recommendations including details and
report, Tentative Provisions for the
schedules for use in the field by construction
Development of Seismic Regulations for
personnel and building inspectors.
Buildings, as amended by a joint committee of
the Building Seismic Safety Council and the ATC-4-1: The report, The Home Builders Guide
National Bureau of Standards in 1982. The for Earthquake Design, was published under a
evaluations are based on studies of three contract with HUD. Available through the ATC
existing California buildings redesigned in office. (Published 1980, 57 pages)
accordance with the ATC-3-06 Tentative
ABSTRACT: This report is an abridged version
Provisions and the 1982 Uniform Building
of the ATC-4 report. The concise, easily
Code. Included in the report are
understood text of the Guide is supplemented
recommendations to code implementing
with illustrations and 46 construction details.
bodies.
The details are provided to ensure that houses
ATC-3-5: This project, “Assistance for First contain structural features that are properly
Phase of ATC-3-06 Trial Design Program Being positioned, dimensioned and constructed to
Conducted by the Building Seismic Safety resist earthquake forces. A brief description is
Council”, was funded by the Building Seismic included on how earthquake forces impact on
Safety Council to provide the services of the ATC houses and some precautionary constraints are
Senior Consultant and other ATC personnel to given with respect to site selection and
assist the BSSC in the conduct of the first phase of architectural designs.
its Trial Design Program. The first phase provided
ATC-5: The report, Guidelines for Seismic
for trial designs conducted for buildings in Los
Design and Construction of Single-Story Masonry
Angeles, Seattle, Phoenix, and Memphis.
Dwellings in Seismic Zone 2, was developed under
ATC-3-6: This project, “Assistance for Second a contract with HUD. Available through the ATC
Phase of ATC-3-06 Trial Design Program Being office. (Published 1986, 38 pages)
Conducted by the Building Seismic Safety
ABSTRACT: The report offers a concise
Council”, was funded by the Building Seismic
methodology for the earthquake design and
Safety Council to provide the services of the ATC
construction of single-story masonry
Senior Consultant and other ATC personnel to
dwellings in Seismic Zone 2 of the United
assist the BSSC in the conduct of the second phase
States, as defined by the 1973 Uniform
of its Trial Design Program. The second phase
Building Code. The Guidelines are based in
provided for trial designs conducted for buildings
part on shaking table tests of masonry
in New York, Chicago, St. Louis, Charleston, and
construction conducted at the University of
Fort Worth.
California at Berkeley Earthquake
ATC-4: The report, A Methodology for Seismic Engineering Research Center. The report is
Design and Construction of Single-Family written in simple language and includes basic
Dwellings, was published under a contract with the house plans, wall evaluations, detail drawings,
Department of Housing and Urban Development and material specifications.
(HUD). Available through the ATC office.
ATC-6: The report, Seismic Design Guidelines
(Published 1976, 576 pages)
for Highway Bridges, was published under a
ABSTRACT: This report presents the results of contract with the Federal Highway Administration
an in-depth effort to develop design and (FHWA). Available through the ATC office.
construction details for single-family (Published 1981, 210 pages)
residences that minimize the potential
ABSTRACT: The Guidelines are the
economic loss and life-loss risk associated
recommendations of a team of sixteen
with earthquakes. The report: (1) discusses
nationally recognized experts that included
the ways structures behave when subjected to
consulting engineers, academics, state and
seismic forces, (2) sets forth suggested design
federal agency representatives from
criteria for conventional layouts of dwellings
throughout the United States. The Guidelines
constructed with conventional materials, (3)
E-2 ATC Projects and Report Information ATC-69

embody several new concepts that were ATC-7-1: The report, Proceedings of a Workshop
significant departures from then existing on Design of Horizontal Wood Diaphragms, was
design provisions. Included in the Guidelines published under a grant from NSF. Available
are an extensive commentary, an example through the ATC office. (Published 1980, 302
demonstrating the use of the Guidelines, and pages)
summary reports on 21 bridges redesigned in
ABSTRACT: The report includes seven papers
accordance with the Guidelines. In 1991 the
on state-of-the-practice and two papers on
guidelines were adopted by the American
recent research. Also included are
Association of Highway and Transportation
recommendations for future research that were
Officials as a standard specification.
developed by the 35 workshop participants.
ATC-6-1: The report, Proceedings of a Workshop
ATC-8: This report, Proceedings of a Workshop
on Earthquake Resistance of Highway Bridges,
on the Design of Prefabricated Concrete Buildings
was published under a grant from NSF. Available
for Earthquake Loads, was funded by NSF.
through the ATC office. (Published 1979, 625
Available through the ATC office. (Published
pages)
1981, 400 pages)
ABSTRACT: The report includes 23 state-of-
ABSTRACT: The report includes eighteen
the-art and state-of-practice papers on
state-of-the-art papers and six summary
earthquake resistance of highway bridges.
papers. Also included are recommendations
Seven of the twenty-three papers were
for future research that were developed by the
authored by participants from Japan, New
43 workshop participants.
Zealand and Portugal. The Proceedings also
contain recommendations for future research ATC-9: The report, An Evaluation of the Imperial
that were developed by the 45 workshop County Services Building Earthquake Response
participants. and Associated Damage, was published under a
grant from NSF. Available through the ATC
ATC-6-2: The report, Seismic Retrofitting
office. (Published 1984, 231 pages)
Guidelines for Highway Bridges, was published
under a contract with FHWA. Available through ABSTRACT: The report presents the results of
the ATC office. (Published 1983, 220 pages) an in-depth evaluation of the Imperial County
Services Building, a 6-story reinforced
ABSTRACT: The Guidelines are the
concrete frame and shear wall building
recommendations of a team of thirteen
severely damaged by the October 15, 1979
nationally recognized experts that included
Imperial Valley, California, earthquake. The
consulting engineers, academics, state
report contains a review and evaluation of
highway engineers, and federal agency
earthquake damage to the building; a review
representatives. The Guidelines, applicable
and evaluation of the seismic design; a
for use in all parts of the United States,
comparison of the requirements of various
include a preliminary screening procedure,
building codes as they relate to the building;
methods for evaluating an existing bridge in
and conclusions and recommendations
detail, and potential retrofitting measures for
pertaining to future building code provisions
the most common seismic deficiencies. Also
and future research needs.
included are special design requirements for
various retrofitting measures. ATC-10: This report, An Investigation of the
Correlation Between Earthquake Ground Motion
ATC-7: The report, Guidelines for the Design of
and Building Performance, was funded by the
Horizontal Wood Diaphragms, was published
U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). Available
under a grant from NSF. Available through the
ATC office. (Published 1981, 190 pages)
pages)
ABSTRACT: Guidelines are presented for
ABSTRACT: The report contains an in-depth
designing roof and floor systems so these can
analytical evaluation of the ultimate or limit
function as horizontal diaphragms in a lateral
capacity of selected representative building
force resisting system. Analytical procedures,
framing types, a discussion of the factors
connection details and design examples are
affecting the seismic performance of
included in the Guidelines.
buildings, and a summary and comparison of

seismic design and seismic risk parameters and 35 New Zealand bridge design engineers
currently in widespread use. and researchers.
ATC-10-1: This report, Critical Aspects of ATC-12-1: This report, Proceedings of Second
Earthquake Ground Motion and Building Damage Joint U.S.-New Zealand Workshop on Seismic
Potential, was co-funded by the USGS and the Resistance of Highway Bridges, was published
NSF. Available through the ATC office. under a grant from NSF. Available through the
(Published 1984, 259 pages) ATC office. (Published 1986, 272 pages)
ABSTRACT: This document contains 19 state- ABSTRACT: This report contains written
of-the-art papers on ground motion, structural versions of the papers presented at this 1985
response, and structural design issues workshop as well as a list and prioritization of
presented by prominent engineers and earth workshop recommendations. Included are
scientists in an ATC seminar. The main theme summaries of research projects being
of the papers is to identify the critical aspects conducted in both countries as well as state-of-
of ground motion and building performance the-practice papers on various aspects of
that currently are not being considered in design practice. Topics discussed include
building design. The report also contains bridge design philosophy and loadings; design
conclusions and recommendations of working of columns, footings, piles, abutments and
groups convened after the Seminar. retaining structures; geotechnical aspects of
foundation design; seismic analysis
ATC-11: The report, Seismic Resistance of
techniques; seismic retrofitting; case studies
Reinforced Concrete Shear Walls and Frame
using base isolation; strong-motion data
Joints: Implications of Recent Research for
acquisition and interpretation; and testing of
Design Engineers, was published under a grant
bridge components and bridge systems.
from NSF. Available through the ATC office.
(Published 1983, 184 pages) ATC-13: The report, Earthquake Damage
Evaluation Data for California, was developed
ABSTRACT: This document presents the
under a contract with the Federal Emergency
results of an in-depth review and synthesis of
Management Agency (FEMA). Available through
research reports pertaining to cyclic loading of
the ATC office. (Published 1985, 492 pages)
reinforced concrete shear walls and cyclic
loading of joints in reinforced concrete frames. ABSTRACT: This report presents expert-
More than 125 research reports published opinion earthquake damage and loss estimates
since 1971 are reviewed and evaluated in this for industrial, commercial, residential, utility
report. The preparation of the report included and transportation facilities in California.
a consensus process involving numerous Included are damage probability matrices for
experienced design professionals from 78 classes of structures and estimates of time
throughout the United States. The report required to restore damaged facilities to pre-
contains reviews of current and past design earthquake usability. The report also
practices, summaries of research describes the inventory information essential
developments, and in-depth discussions of for estimating economic losses and the
design implications of recent research results. methodology used to develop loss estimates
on a regional basis.
ATC-12: This report, Comparison of United
States and New Zealand Seismic Design Practices ATC-13-1: The report, Commentary on the Use
for Highway Bridges, was published under a grant of ATC-13 Earthquake Damage Evaluation Data
from NSF. Available through the ATC office. for Probable Maximum Loss Studies of California
(Published 1982, 270 pages) Buildings, was developed with funding from
ATC’s Henry J. Degenkolb Memorial Endowment
ABSTRACT: The report contains summaries of
Fund. Available through the ATC office.
all aspects and innovative design procedures
used in New Zealand as well as comparison of
United States and New Zealand design ABSTRACT: This report provides guidance to
practice. Also included are research consulting firms who are using ATC-13
recommendations developed at a 3-day expert-opinion data for probable maximum
workshop in New Zealand attended by 16 U.S. loss (PML) studies of California buildings.
Included are discussions of the limitations of

the ATC-13 expert-opinion data, and the and researchers from the U.S. and Japan.
issues associated with using the data for PML Included are state-of-the-practice papers and
studies. Also included are three appendices case studies of actual building designs and
containing information and data not included information on regulatory, contractual, and
in the original ATC-13 report: (1) ATC-13 licensing issues.
model building type descriptions, including
ATC-15-2: The report, Proceedings of Third
methodology for estimating the expected
U.S.-Japan Workshop on Improvement of Building
performance of standard, nonstandard, and
Structural Design and Construction Practices, was
special construction; (2) ATC-13 Beta damage
published jointly by ATC and the Japan Structural
distribution parameters for model building
Consultants Association. Available through the
types; and (3) PML values for ATC-13 model
building types.
ABSTRACT: This report contains 21 technical
ATC-14: The report, Evaluating the Seismic
papers presented at this Tokyo, Japan,
Resistance of Existing Buildings, was developed
workshop in July, 1988, by practitioners and
under a grant from the NSF. Available through
researchers from the U.S., Japan, China, and
New Zealand. Included are state-of-the-
ABSTRACT: This report, written for practicing practice papers on various topics, including
structural engineers, describes a methodology braced steel frame buildings, beam-column
for performing preliminary and detailed joints in reinforced concrete buildings,
building seismic evaluations. The report summaries of comparative U. S. and Japanese
contains a state-of-practice review; seismic design, and base isolation and passive energy
loading criteria; data collection procedures; a dissipation devices.
detailed description of the building
ATC-15-3: The report, Proceedings of Fourth
classification system; preliminary and detailed
U.S.-Japan Workshop on Improvement of Building
analysis procedures; and example case studies,
Structural Design and Construction Practices, was
including nonstructural considerations.
published jointly by ATC and the Japan Structural
ATC-15: The report, Comparison of Seismic Consultants Association. Available through the
Design Practices in the United States and Japan, ATC office. (Published 1992, 484 pages)
was published under a grant from NSF. Available
papers presented at this Kailua-Kona, Hawaii,
pages)
workshop in August, 1990, by practitioners
ABSTRACT: The report contains detailed and researchers from the United States, Japan,
technical papers describing design practices in and Peru. Included are papers on
the United States and Japan as well as postearthquake building damage assessment;
recommendations emanating from a joint acceptable earth-quake damage; repair and
U.S.-Japan workshop held in Hawaii in retrofit of earthquake damaged buildings;
March, 1984. Included are detailed base-isolated buildings, including
descriptions of new seismic design methods Architectural Institute of Japan
for buildings in Japan and case studies of the recommendations for design; active damping
design of specific buildings (in both systems; wind-resistant design; and summaries
countries). The report also contains an of working group conclusions and
overview of the history and objectives of the recommendations.
Japan Structural Consultants Association.
ATC-15-4: The report, Proceedings of Fifth U.S.-
ATC-15-1: The report, Proceedings of Second Japan Workshop on Improvement of Building
U.S.-Japan Workshop on Improvement of Building Structural Design and Construction Practices, was
Seismic Design and Construction Practices, was published jointly by ATC and the Japan Structural
published under a grant from NSF. Available Consultants Association. Available through the
through the ATC office. (Published 1987, 412 ATC office. (Published 1994, 360 pages)
pages)
ABSTRACT: This report contains 23 technical papers presented at this San Diego, California
papers presented at this San Francisco workshop in September, 1992. Included are
workshop in August, 1986, by practitioners papers on performance goals/acceptable

damage in seismic design; seismic design competitively selected papers on issues related
procedures and case studies; construction to seismic isolation systems, passive energy
influences on design; seismic isolation and dissipation systems, active control systems
passive energy dissipation; design of irregular and hybrid systems.
structures; seismic evaluation, repair and
ATC-18: The report, Seismic Design Criteria for
upgrading; quality control for design and
Bridges and Other Highway Structures: Current
construction; and summaries of working group
and Future, was developed under a grant from
discussions and recommendations.
NCEER and FHWA. Available through the ATC
ATC-16: This project, “Development of a 5-Year office. (Published, 1997, 151 pages)
Plan for Reducing the Earthquake Hazards Posed
ABSTRACT: Prepared as part of NCEER
by Existing Nonfederal Buildings”, was funded by
Project 112 on new highway construction, this
FEMA and was conducted by a joint venture of
report reviews current domestic and foreign
ATC, the Building Seismic Safety Council and the
design practice, philosophy and criteria, and
Earthquake Engineering Research Institute. The
recommends future directions for code
project involved a workshop in Phoenix, Arizona,
development. The project considered bridges,
where approximately 50 earthquake specialists
tunnels, abutments, retaining wall structures,
met to identify the major tasks and goals for
and foundations.
reducing the earthquake hazards posed by existing
nonfederal buildings nationwide. The plan was ATC-18-1: The report, Impact Assessment of
developed on the basis of nine issue papers Selected MCEER Highway Project Research on
presented at the workshop and workshop working the Seismic Design of Highway Structures, was
group discussions. The Workshop Proceedings developed under a contract from the
and Five-Year Plan are available through the Multidisciplinary Center for Earthquake
Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 “C” Engineering Research (MCEER, formerly
Street, S.W., Washington, DC 20472. NCEER) and FHWA. Available through the ATC
office. (Published, 1999, 136 pages)
ATC-17: This report, Proceedings of a Seminar
and Workshop on Base Isolation and Passive ABSTRACT: The report provides an in-depth
Energy Dissipation, was published under a grant review and assessment of 32 research reports
from NSF. Available through the ATC office. emanating from the MCEER Project 112 on
(Published 1986, 478 pages) new highway construction, as well as
recommendations for future bridge seismic
ABSTRACT: The report contains 42 papers
design guidelines. Topics covered include:
describing the state-of-the-art and state-of-the-
ground motion issues; determining structural
practice in base-isolation and passive energy-
importance; foundations and soils;
dissipation technology. Included are papers
liquefaction mitigation methodologies;
describing case studies in the United States,
modeling of pile footings and drilled shafts;
applications and developments worldwide,
damage-avoidance design of bridge piers,
recent innovations in technology development,
column design, modeling, and analysis;
and structural and ground motion issues. Also
structural steel and steel-concrete interface
included is a proposed 5-year research agenda
details; abutment design, modeling, and
that addresses the following specific issues:
analysis; and detailing for structural
(1) strong ground motion; (2) design criteria;
movements in tunnels.
(3) materials, quality control, and long-term
reliability; (4) life cycle cost methodology; ATC-19: The report, Structural Response
and (5) system response. Modification Factors was funded by NSF and
NCEER. Available through the ATC office.
ATC-17-1: This report, Proceedings of a Seminar
on Seismic Isolation, Passive Energy Dissipation
and Active Control, was published under a grant ABSTRACT: This report addresses structural
from NCEER and NSF. Available through the response modification factors (R factors),
ATC office. (Published 1993, 841 pages) which are used to reduce the seismic forces
associated with elastic response to obtain
ABSTRACT: The 2-volume report documents
design forces. The report documents the basis
70 technical papers presented during a two-
for current R values, how R factors are used
day seminar in San Francisco in early 1993.
for seismic design in other countries, a rational
Included are invited theme papers and

means for decomposing R into key ABSTRACT: This report provides updated
components, a framework (and methods) for assessment forms, placards, including a
evaluating the key components of R, and the revised yellow placard (“restricted use”) and
research necessary to improve the reliability of procedures that are based on an in-depth
engineered construction designed using R review and evaluation of the widespread
factors. application of the ATC-20 procedures
following five earthquakes occurring since the
ATC-20: The report, Procedures for
initial release of the ATC-20 report in 1989.
Postearthquake Safety Evaluation of Buildings,
was developed under a contract from the ATC-20-3: The report, Case Studies in Rapid
California Office of Emergency Services (OES), Postearthquake Safety Evaluation of Buildings,
California Office of Statewide Health Planning was funded by ATC and R. P. Gallagher
and Development (OSHPD) and FEMA. Associates. Available through the ATC office.
Available through the ATC office (Published (Published 1996, 295 pages)
1989, 152 pages)
ABSTRACT: This report contains 53 case
ABSTRACT: This report provides procedures studies using the ATC-20 Rapid Evaluation
and guidelines for making on-the-spot procedure. Each case study is illustrated with
evaluations and decisions regarding continued photos and describes how a building was
use and occupancy of earthquake damaged inspected and evaluated for life safety, and
buildings. Written specifically for volunteer includes a completed safety assessment form
structural engineers and building inspectors, and placard. The report is intended to be used
the report includes rapid and detailed as a training and reference manual for building
evaluation procedures for inspecting buildings officials, building inspectors, civil and
and posting them as “inspected” (apparently structural engineers, architects, disaster
safe, green placard), “limited entry” (yellow) workers, and others who may be asked to
or “unsafe” (red). Also included are special perform safety evaluations after an
procedures for evaluation of essential earthquake.
buildings (e.g., hospitals), and evaluation
ATC-20-T: The Postearthquake Safety
procedures for nonstructural elements, and
Evaluation of Buildings Training CD was
geotechnical hazards.
developed by FEMA to replace the 1993 ATC-20-
ATC-20-1: The report, Field Manual: T Training Manual that included 160 35-mm
Postearthquake Safety Evaluation of Buildings, slides. Available through the ATC office.
Second Edition, was funded by Applied (Published 2002, 230 PowerPoint slides with
Technology Council. Available through the ATC Speakers Notes)
office (Published 2004, 143 pages)
ABSTRACT: This Training CD is intended to
ABSTRACT: This report, a companion Field facilitate the presentation of the contents of the
Manual for the ATC-20 report, summarizes ATC-20 and ATC-20-2 reports in a 4½-hour
the postearthquake safety evaluation training seminar. The Training CD contains
procedures in a brief concise format designed 230 slides of photographs, schematic drawings
for ease of use in the field. The Second and textual information. Topics covered
Edition has been updated to include improved include: posting system; evaluation
versions of the posting placards and evaluation procedures; structural basics; wood frame,
forms, as well as more detailed information on masonry, concrete, and steel frame structures;
steel moment-frame buildings, mobile homes, nonstructural elements; geotechnical hazards;
and manufactured housing. It also includes hazardous materials; and field safety.
new information on barricading and provides a
ATC-21: The report, Second Edition, Rapid
list of internet resources pertaining to
Visual Screening of Buildings for Potential
postearthquake safety evaluation.
Seismic Hazards: A Handbook, was developed
ATC-20-2: The report, Addendum to the ATC-20 under a contract from FEMA. Available through
Postearthquake Building Safety Procedures was the ATC office, or from FEMA by contacting 1-
published under a grant from the NSF and funded 800-480-2520, as FEMA 154 Second Edition.
by the USGS. Available through the ATC office. (Published 2002, 161 pages)

ABSTRACT: This report describes a rapid ATC-21-T: The report, Rapid Visual Screening of
visual screening procedure for identifying Buildings for Potential Seismic Hazards Training
those buildings that might pose serious risk of Manual Second Edition, was developed under a
loss of life and injury, or of severe curtailment contract with FEMA. Available through the ATC
of community services, in case of a damaging office. (Published 2004, 148 pages and
earthquake. The screening procedure utilizes PowerPoint presentation on companion CD)
a methodology based on a "sidewalk survey"
ABSTRACT: This training manual and CD is
approach that involves identification of the
intended to facilitate the presentation of the
primary structural load-resisting system and its
contents of the FEMA 154 report (Second
building material, and assignment of a basic
Edition). The training materials consist of 120
structural hazards score and performance
slides in PowerPointTM format and a
modifiers based on the observed building
companion training presentation narrative
characteristics. Application of the
coordinated with the presentation. Topics
methodology identifies those buildings that are
covered include: description of procedure,
potentially hazardous and should be analyzed
building behavior, building types, building
in more detail by a professional engineer
scores, occupancy and falling hazards, and
experienced in seismic design. In the Second
implementation.
Edition, the scoring system has been revised
and the Handbook has been shortened and ATC-22: The report, A Handbook for Seismic
focused to ease its use. Evaluation of Existing Buildings (Preliminary),
was developed under a contract from FEMA.
ATC-21-1: The report, Rapid Visual Screening of
(Originally published in 1989; revised by BSSC
Buildings for Potential Seismic Hazards:
and published as FEMA 178: NEHRP Handbook
Supporting Documentation, Second Edition, was
for the Seismic Evaluation of Existing Buildings in
developed under a contract from FEMA.
1992, 211 pages; revised by ASCE for FEMA and
Available through the ATC office, or from FEMA
published as FEMA 310: Handbook for the
by contacting 1-800-480-2520, as FEMA 155
Seismic Evaluation of Buildings – a Prestandard
Second Edition. (Published 2002, 117 pages)
in 1998, 362 pages; revised and published as
ABSTRACT: Included in this report is the ASCE 31-03, a standard of the American Society
technical basis for the updated rapid visual of Civil Engineers, in 2003). Available through
screening procedure of ATC-21, including (1) ASCE, Reston, Virginia.
a summary of the results from the efforts to
ABSTRACT: The ATC-22 handbook provides a
solicit user feedback, and (2) a detailed
methodology for seismic evaluation of
description of the development effort leading
existing buildings of different types and
to the basic structural hazard scores and the
occupancies in areas of different seismicity
score modifiers.
throughout the United States. The
ATC-21-2: The report, Earthquake Damaged methodology, which has been field tested in
Buildings: An Overview of Heavy Debris and several programs nationwide, utilizes the
Victim Extrication, was developed under a information and procedures developed for the
contract from FEMA. (Published 1988, 95 pages) ATC-14 report and documented therein. The
handbook includes checklists, diagrams, and
ABSTRACT: Included in this report, a
sketches designed to assist the user.
companion volume to the first edition of the
ATC-21 and ATC-21-1 reports, is state-of-the- ATC-22-1: The report, Seismic Evaluation of
art information on (1) the identification of Existing Buildings: Supporting Documentation,
those buildings that might collapse and trap was developed under a contract from FEMA.
victims in debris or generate debris of such a (Published 1989, 160 pages)
size that its handling would require special or
ABSTRACT: Included in this report, a
heavy lifting equipment; (2) guidance in
companion volume to the ATC-22 report, are
identifying these types of buildings, on the
(1) a review and evaluation of existing
basis of their major exterior features, and (3)
buildings seismic evaluation methodologies;
the types and life capacities of equipment
(2) results from field tests of the ATC-14
required to remove the heavy portion of the
methodology; and (3) summaries of
debris that might result from the collapse of
evaluations of ATC-14 conducted by the
such buildings.
National Center for Earthquake Engineering

Research (State University of New York at ABSTRACT: Documented in this report is a
Buffalo) and the City of San Francisco. national overview of lifeline seismic
vulnerability and impact of disruption.
ATC-23A: The report, General Acute Care
Lifelines considered include electric systems,
Hospital Earthquake Survivability Inventory for
water systems, transportation systems, gas and
California, Part A: Survey Description, Summary
liquid fuel supply systems, and emergency
of Results, Data Analysis and Interpretation, was
service facilities (hospitals, fire and police
developed under a contract from the Office of
stations). Vulnerability estimates and impacts
Statewide Health Planning and Development
developed are presented in terms of estimated
(OSHPD), State of California. Available through
first approximation direct damage losses and
indirect economic losses.
ABSTRACT: This report summarizes results
ATC-25-1: The report, A Model Methodology for
from a seismic survey of 490 California acute
Assessment of Seismic Vulnerability and Impact of
care hospitals. Included are a description of
Disruption of Water Supply Systems, was
the survey procedures and data collected, a
developed under a contract from FEMA.
summary of the data, and an illustrative
discussion of data analysis and interpretation
1992, 147 pages)
that has been provided to demonstrate
potential applications of the ATC-23 database. ABSTRACT: This report contains a practical
methodology for the detailed assessment of
ATC-23B: The report, General Acute Care
seismic vulnerability and impact of disruption
Hospital Earthquake Survivability Inventory for
of water supply systems. The methodology has
California, Part B: Raw Data, is a companion
been designed for use by water system
document to the ATC-23A Report and was
operators. Application of the methodology
developed under the above-mentioned contract
enables the user to develop estimates of direct
from OSHPD. Available through the ATC office.
damage to system components and the time
required to restore damaged facilities to pre-
ABSTRACT: Included in this report are earthquake usability. Suggested measures for
tabulations of raw general site and building mitigation of seismic hazards are also
data for 490 acute care hospitals in California. provided.
ATC-24: The report, Guidelines for Seismic ATC-26: This project, U.S. Postal Service
Testing of Components of Steel Structures, was National Seismic Program, was funded under a
jointly funded by the American Iron and Steel contract with the U.S. Postal Service (USPS).
Institute (AISI), American Institute of Steel Under this project, ATC developed and submitted
Construction (AISC), National Center for to the USPS the following interim documents,
Earthquake Engineering Research (NCEER), and most of which pertain to the seismic evaluation
NSF. Available through the ATC office. and rehabilitation of USPS facilities:
ATC-26 Report, Cost Projections for the U. S.
ABSTRACT: This report provides guidance for Postal Service Seismic Program (completed
most cyclic experiments on components of 1990)
steel structures for the purpose of consistency
ATC-26-1 Report, United States Postal
in experimental procedures. The report
Service Procedures for Seismic Evaluation of
contains recommendations and companion
Existing Buildings (Interim) (Completed 1991)
commentary pertaining to loading histories,
presentation of test results, and other aspects ATC-26-2 Report, Procedures for Post-
of experimentation. The recommendations are disaster Safety Evaluation of Postal Service
written specifically for experiments with slow Facilities (Interim) (Published 1991, 221
cyclic load application. pages, available through the ATC office)
ATC-25: The report, Seismic Vulnerability and ATC-26-3 Report, Field Manual: Post-
Impact of Disruption of Lifelines in the earthquake Safety Evaluation of Postal
Conterminous United States, was developed under Buildings (Interim) (Published 1992, 133
a contract from FEMA. Available through the pages, available through the ATC office)

ATC-26-3A Report, Field Manual: Post a summary of a proposed 5-year research
Flood and Wind Storm Safety Evaluation of agenda for NCEER.
Postal Buildings (Interim) (Published 1992,
ATC-29-1: The report, Proceedings of a Seminar
114 pages, available through the ATC office)
on Seismic Design, Retrofit, and Performance of
ATC-26-4 Report, United States Postal Nonstructural Components, was developed under
Service Procedures for Building Seismic a grant from NCEER and NSF. Available through
Rehabilitation (Interim) (Completed 1992) the ATC office. (Published 1998, 518 pages)
ATC-26-5 Report, United States Postal ABSTRACT: These Proceedings contain 38
Service Guidelines for Building and Site technical papers presented at a seminar in San
Selection in Seismic Areas (Interim) Francisco, California in 1998. The paper
(Completed 1992) topics include: observed performance in
recent earthquakes; seismic design codes,
ATC-28: The report, Development of
standards, and procedures for commercial and
Recommended Guidelines for Seismic
institutional buildings; seismic design issues
Strengthening of Existing Buildings, Phase I:
relating to industrial and hazardous material
Issues Identification and Resolution, was
facilities; design analysis, and testing; and
developed under a contract with FEMA.
seismic evaluation and rehabilitation of
conventional and essential facilities, including
1992, 150 pages)
hospitals.
ABSTRACT: This report identifies and provides
ATC-29-2: The report, Proceedings of Seminar
resolutions for issues that will affect the
on Seismic Design, Performance, and Retrofit of
development of guidelines for the seismic
Nonstructural Components in Critical Facilities,
strengthening of existing buildings. Issues
was developed under a grant from MCEER and
addressed include: implementation and
NSF. Available through the ATC office.
format, coordination with other efforts, legal
and political, social, economic, historic
buildings, research and technology, seismicity ABSTRACT: These Proceedings contain 43
and mapping, engineering philosophy and papers presented at a seminar in Newport
goals, issues related to the development of Beach, California, in 2003. The purpose of
specific provisions, and nonstructural element the Seminar was to present state-of-the-art
issues. technical information pertaining to the seismic
design, performance, and retrofit of
ATC-29: The report, Proceedings of a Seminar
nonstructural components in critical facilities
and Workshop on Seismic Design and
(e.g., computer centers, hospitals,
Performance of Equipment and Nonstructural
manufacturing plants with especially
Elements in Buildings and Industrial Structures,
hazardous materials, and museums with
was developed under a grant from NCEER and
fragile/valuable collection items). The
NSF. Available through the ATC office.
technical papers address the following topics:
current practices and emerging codes; seismic
ABSTRACT: These Proceedings contain 35 design and retrofit; risk and performance
papers describing state-of-the-art technical evaluation; system qualification and testing;
information pertaining to the seismic design and advanced technologies.
and performance of equipment and
ATC-30: The report, Proceedings of Workshop
nonstructural elements in buildings and
for Utilization of Research on Engineering and
industrial structures. The papers were
Socioeconomic Aspects of 1985 Chile and Mexico
presented at a seminar in Irvine, California in
Earthquakes, was developed under a grant from
1990. Included are papers describing current
the NSF. Available through the ATC office.
practice, codes and regulations; earthquake
performance; analytical and experimental
investigations; development of new seismic ABSTRACT: This report documents the
qualification methods; and research, practice, findings of a 1990 technology transfer
and code development needs for specific workshop in San Diego, California, co-
elements and systems. The report also includes sponsored by ATC and the Earthquake
Engineering Research Institute. Included in

the report are invited papers and working loading, including ARS design spectra;
group recommendations on geotechnical dynamic analysis; foundation design; ductile
issues, structural response issues, architectural component design; capacity protected design;
and urban design considerations, emergency reinforcing details; and steel bridges.
response planning, search and rescue, and
ATC-33: The reports, NEHRP Guidelines for the
reconstruction policy issues.
Seismic Rehabilitation of Buildings (FEMA 273),
ATC-31: The report, Evaluation of the NEHRP Commentary on the Guidelines for the
Performance of Seismically Retrofitted Buildings, Seismic Rehabilitation of Buildings (FEMA 274),
was developed under a contract from the National and Example Applications of the NEHRP
Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST, Guidelines for the Seismic Rehabilitation of
formerly NBS) and funded by the USGS. Buildings (FEMA 276), were developed under a
Available through the ATC office. (Published contract with the Building Seismic Safety Council,
1992, 75 pages) for FEMA. (Published 1997, Guidelines, 440
pages; Commentary, 492 pages; Example
ABSTRACT: This report summarizes the results
Applications, 295 pages.) FEMA 273 and portions
from an investigation of the effectiveness of
of FEMA 274 have been revised by ASCE for
229 seismically retrofitted buildings, primarily
FEMA as FEMA 356 Prestandard and
unreinforced masonry and concrete tilt-up
Commentary for the Seismic Rehabilitation of
buildings. All buildings were located in the
Buildings. Available through FEMA by contacting
areas affected by the 1987 Whittier Narrows,
1-800-480-2520 (Published 2000, 509 pages)
California, and 1989 Loma Prieta, California,
earthquakes. ABSTRACT: Developed over a 5-year period
through the efforts of more than 60 paid
ATC-32: The report, Improved Seismic Design
consultants and several hundred volunteer
Criteria for California Bridges: Provisional
reviewers, these documents provide nationally
Recommendations, was funded by the California
applicable, state-of-the-art guidance for the
Department of Transportation (Caltrans).
seismic rehabilitation of buildings. The
FEMA 273 Guidelines contain several new
1996, 215 pages)
features that depart significantly from previous
ABSTRACT: This report provides seismic design procedures used to design new
recommended revisions to the then-current buildings: seismic performance levels and
Caltrans Bridge Design Specifications (BDS) rehabilitation objectives; simplified and
pertaining to seismic loading, structural systematic rehabilitation methods; new linear
response analysis, and component design. static and nonlinear static analysis procedures;
Special attention is given to design issues quantitative specifications of component
related to reinforced concrete components, behavior; and procedures for incorporating
steel components, foundations, and new information and technologies, such as
conventional bearings. The recommendations seismic isolation and energy dissipation
are based on recent research in the field of systems, into rehabilitation.
bridge seismic design and the performance of
ATC-34: The report, A Critical Review of
Caltrans-designed bridges in the 1989 Loma
Current Approaches to Earthquake Resistant
Prieta and other recent California earthquakes.
Design, was developed under a grant from
ATC-32-1: The report, Improved Seismic Design NCEER and NSF. Available through the ATC
Criteria for California Bridges: Resource office. (Published, 1995, 94 pages)
Document, was funded by Caltrans. Available
ABSTRACT: This report documents the history
of U. S. codes and standards of practice,
pages; also available on CD-ROM)
focusing primarily on the strengths and
ABSTRACT: This report, a companion to the deficiencies of current code approaches. Issues
ATC-32 Report, documents pertinent addressed include: seismic hazard analysis,
background material and the technical basis earthquake collateral hazards, performance
for the recommendations provided in ATC-32, objectives, redundancy and configuration,
including potential recommendations that response modification factors (R factors),
showed some promise but were not adopted. simplified analysis procedures, modeling of
Topics include: design concepts; seismic structural components, foundation design,

nonstructural component design, and risk and characterization and ground motion
reliability. The report also identifies goals that attenuation.
a new seismic code should achieve.
ATC-35-3: The report, Proceedings: Workshop
ATC-35: This report, Enhancing the Transfer of on Improved Characterization of Strong Ground
U.S. Geological Survey Research Results into Shaking for Seismic Design, was developed under
Engineering Practice was developed under a a cooperative agreement with USGS. Available
cooperative agreement with the USGS. Available through the ATC office. (Published 1999, 75
through the ATC office. (Published 1994, 120 pages)
pages)
ABSTRACT: These Proceedings document the
ABSTRACT: The report provides a program of technical presentations and findings of a
recommended “technology transfer” activities workshop in Rancho Bernardo, California in
for the USGS; included are recommendations 1997 on the Ground Motion Initiative (GMI)
pertaining to management actions, component of the ATC-35 Project. The
communications with practicing engineers, workshop focused on identifying needs and
and research activities to enhance developing improved representations of
development and transfer of information that earthquake ground motion for use in seismic
is vital to engineering practice. design practice, including codes.
ATC-35-1: The report, Proceedings of Seminar ATC-37: The report, Review of Seismic Research
on New Developments in Earthquake Ground Results on Existing Buildings, was developed in
Motion Estimation and Implications for conjunction with the Structural Engineers
Engineering Design Practice, was developed Association of California and California
under a cooperative agreement with USGS. Universities for Research in Earthquake
Available through the ATC office. (Published Engineering under a contract from the California
1994, 478 pages) Seismic Safety Commission (SSC). Available
through the Seismic Safety Commission as Report
ABSTRACT: These Proceedings contain 22
SSC 94-03. (Published, 1994, 492 pages)
technical papers describing state-of-the-art
information on regional earthquake risk ABSTRACT: This report describes the state of
(focused on five specific regions—Northern knowledge of the earthquake performance of
and Southern California, Pacific Northwest, nonductile concrete frame, shear wall, and
Central United States, and northeastern North infilled buildings. Included are summaries of
America); new techniques for estimating 90 recent research efforts with key results and
strong ground motions as a function of conclusions in a simple, easy-to-access format
earthquake source, travel path, and site written for practicing design professionals.
parameters; and new developments
ATC-38: This report, Database on the
specifically applicable to geotechnical
Performance of Structures near Strong-Motion
engineering and the seismic design of
Recordings: 1994 Northridge, California,
buildings and bridges.
Earthquake, was developed with funding from the
ATC-35-2: The report, Proceedings: National USGS, the Southern California Earthquake Center
Earthquake Ground Motion Mapping Workshop, (SCEC), OES, and the Institute for Business and
was developed under a cooperative agreement Home Safety (IBHS). Available through the ATC
with USGS. Available through the ATC office. office. (Published 2000, 260 pages, with CD-ROM
(Published 1997, 154 pages) containing complete database).
ABSTRACT: These Proceedings document the ABSTRACT: The report documents the
technical presentations and findings of a earthquake performance of 530 buildings
workshop in Los Angeles in 1995 on several within 1000 feet of sites where strong ground
key issues that affect the preparation and use motion was recorded during the 1994
of national earthquake ground motion maps Northridge, California, earthquake (31
for design. The following four key issues recording sites in total). The project required
were the focus of the workshop: ground the development of a suitable survey form, the
motion parameters; reference site conditions; training of licensed engineers for the survey,
probabilistic versus deterministic basis, and the selection of the surveyed areas, and the
the treatment of uncertainty in seismic source entry of the survey data into an electronic

relational database. The full database is SAC-95-03, Characterization of Ground
contained in the ATC-38 CD-ROM. The Motions During the Northridge Earthquake of
ATC-38 database includes information on the January 17, 1994 (Published 1995, 179
structure size, age and location; the structural pages, available through the ATC office)
framing system and other important structural
SAC-95-04, Analytical and Field
characteristics; nonstructural characteristics;
Investigations of Buildings Affected by the
geotechnical effects, such as liquefaction;
Northridge Earthquake of January 17, 1994
performance characteristics (damage);
(Published 1995, 2 volumes, 900 pages,
fatalities and injuries; and estimated time to
available through the ATC office)
restore the facility to its pre-earthquake
usability. The report and CD also contain SAC-95-05, Parametric Analytical
strong-motion data, including acceleration, Investigations of Ground Motion and
velocity, and displacement time histories, and Structural Response, Northridge Earthquake
acceleration response spectra. of January 17, 1994 (Published 1995, 274
pages, available through the ATC office)
ATC-40: The report, Seismic Evaluation and
Retrofit of Concrete Buildings, was developed SAC-95-06, Surveys and Assessment of
under a contract from the California Seismic Damage to Buildings Affected by the
Safety Commission. Available through the ATC Northridge Earthquake of January 17, 1994
office. (Published, 1996, 612 pages) (Published 1995, 315 pages, available through
the ATC office)
ABSTRACT: This 2-volume report provides a
state-of-the-art methodology for the seismic SAC-95-07, Case Studies of Steel Moment
evaluation and retrofit of concrete buildings. Frame Building Performance in the
Specific guidance is provided on the following Northridge Earthquake of January 17, 1994
topics: performance objectives; seismic (Published 1995, 260 pages, available through
hazard; determination of deficiencies; retrofit the ATC office)
strategies; quality assurance procedures;
SAC-95-08, Experimental Investigations of
nonlinear static analysis procedures; modeling
Materials, Weldments and Nondestructive
rules; foundation effects; response limits; and
Examination Techniques (Published 1995, 144
nonstructural components. In 1997 this report
pages, available through the ATC office)
received the Western States Seismic Policy
Council “Overall Excellence and New SAC-95-09, Background Reports:
Technology Award.” Metallurgy, Fracture Mechanics, Welding,
Moment Connections and Frame systems,
ATC-41 (SAC Joint Venture, Phase 1): This
Behavior (FEMA 288 report) (Published 1995,
project, Program to Reduce the Earthquake
361 pages, available through ATC and by
Hazards of Steel Moment-Resisting Frame
calling FEMA: 1-800-480-2520)
Structures, Phase 1, was funded by FEMA and
OES and conducted by a Joint Venture partnership SAC-96-01, Experimental Investigations of
of SEAOC, ATC, and CUREe. Under this Phase 1 Beam-Column Subassemblages, Part 1 and 2
program SAC prepared the following documents: (Published 1996, 2 volumes, 924 pages,
available through the ATC office)
SAC-94-01, Proceedings of the Invitational
Workshop on Steel Seismic Issues, Los SAC-96-02, Connection Test Summaries
Angeles, September 1994 (Published 1994, (FEMA 289 report) (Published 1996, available
155 pages, available through the ATC office) through ATC and by calling FEMA: 1-800-
480-2520)
SAC-95-01, Steel Moment-Frame Connection
Advisory No. 3 (Published 1995, 310 pages, ATC-41-1 (SAC Joint Venture, Phase 2): This
available through the ATC office) project, Program to Reduce the Earthquake
Hazards of Steel Moment-Resisting Frame
SAC-95-02, Interim Guidelines: Evaluation,
Structures, Phase 2, was funded by FEMA and
Repair, Modification and Design of Welded
conducted by a Joint Venture partnership of
Steel Moment-Frame Structures (FEMA 267
SEAOC, ATC, and CUREe. Under this Phase 2
report) (Published 1995, 215 pages, available
program SAC prepared the following documents:
through ATC and by calling FEMA: 1-800-
480-2520)

SAC-96-03, Interim Guidelines Advisory No. 1-800-480-2520. Printed version also available
1 Supplement to FEMA 267 Interim through ATC).
Guidelines (FEMA 267A Report) (Published
FEMA-355D, State of the Art Report on
1997, 100 pages, and superseded by FEMA-
Connection Performance. (Published 2000,
350 to 353.)
292 pages; available on CD-ROM through
SAC-99-01, Interim Guidelines Advisory No. ATC and by calling FEMA: 1-800-480-2520.
2 Supplement to FEMA-267 Interim Printed version also available through ATC).
Guidelines (FEMA 267B Report, superseding
FEMA-355E, State of the Art Report on Past
FEMA-267A). (Published 1999, 150 pages,
Performance of Steel Moment-Frame
and superseded by FEMA-350 to 353.)
Buildings in Earthquakes. (Published 2000,
FEMA-350, Recommended Seismic Design 190 pages; available on CD-ROM through
Criteria for New Steel Moment-Frame ATC and by calling FEMA: 1-800-480-2520.
Buildings. (Published 2000, 190 pages, Printed version also available through ATC).
available through ATC and by calling FEMA:
FEMA-355F, State of the Art Report on
1-800-480-2520)
Performance Prediction and Evaluation of
FEMA-351, Recommended Seismic Steel Moment-Frame Structures. (Published
Evaluation and Upgrade Criteria for Existing 2000, 347 pages; available on CD-ROM
Welded Steel Moment-Frame Buildings. through ATC and by calling FEMA: 1-800-
(Published 2000, 210 pages, available through 480-2520. Printed version also available
ATC and by calling FEMA: 1-800-480-2520) through ATC).
FEMA-352, Recommended Postearthquake ATC-43: The reports, Evaluation of Earthquake-
Evaluation and Repair Criteria for Welded Damaged Concrete and Masonry Wall Buildings,
Steel Moment-Frame Buildings. (Published Basic Procedures Manual (FEMA 306),
2000, 180 pages, available through ATC and Evaluation of Earthquake-Damaged Concrete and
by calling FEMA: 1-800-480-2520) Masonry Wall Buildings, Technical Resources
(FEMA 307), and The Repair of Earthquake
FEMA-353, Recommended Specifications and
Damaged Concrete and Masonry Wall Buildings
Quality Assurance Guidelines for Steel
(FEMA 308), were developed for FEMA under a
Moment-Frame Construction for Seismic
contract with the Partnership for Response and
Applications. (Published 2000, 180 pages,
Recovery, a Joint Venture of Dewberry & Davis
available through ATC and by calling FEMA:
and Woodward-Clyde. Available on CD-ROM
1-800-480-2520)
through ATC; printed versions available through
FEMA-354, A Policy Guide to Steel Moment- FEMA by contacting 1-800-480-2520 (Published,
Frame Construction. (Published 2000, 27 1998, Evaluation Procedures Manual, 270 pages;
pages, available through ATC and by calling Technical Resources, 271 pages, Repair
FEMA: 1-800-480-2520) Document, 81 pages)
FEMA-355A, State of the Art Report on Base ABSTRACT: Developed by 26 nationally
Materials and Fracture. (Published 2000, 107 recognized specialists in earthquake
pages; available on CD-ROM through ATC engineering, these documents provide field
and by calling FEMA: 1-800-480-2520. investigation techniques, damage evaluation
Printed version also available through ATC). procedures, methods for performance loss
determination, repair guides and
FEMA-355B, State of the Art Report on
recommended repair techniques, and an in-
Welding and Inspection. (Published 2000, 185
depth discussion of policy issues pertaining to
pages; available on CD-ROM through ATC
the repair and upgrade of earthquake damaged
and by calling FEMA: 1-800-480-2520.
buildings. The documents have been
Printed version also available through ATC).
developed specifically for buildings with
FEMA-355C, State of the Art Report on primary lateral-force-resisting systems
Systems Performance of Steel Moment Frames consisting of concrete bearing walls or
Subject to Earthquake Ground Shaking. masonry bearing walls, and vertical-load-
(Published 2000, 322 pages; available on CD- bearing concrete frames or steel frames with
ROM through ATC and by calling FEMA: concrete or masonry infill panels. The
intended audience includes design engineers,

building owners, building regulatory officials, ABSTRACT: Bound in a three-ring notebook,
and government agencies. the curriculum contains training materials
pertaining to the seismic design and retrofit of
ATC-44: The report, Hurricane Fran, North
wood-frame buildings, concrete and masonry
Carolina, September 5, 1996: Reconnaissance
construction, and nonstructural components.
Report, was funded by the Applied Technology
Included are detailed, illustrated, instructional
Council. Available through the ATC office.
material (lessons) and a series of multi-part
Briefing Papers and Job Aids to facilitate
ABSTRACT: Written for an intended audience improvement in the quality of seismic design,
of design professionals and regulators, this inspection, and construction.
report contains information on hurricane size,
ATC-49: The 2-volume report, Recommended
path, and rainfall amounts; coastal impacts,
LRFD Guidelines for the Seismic Design of
including storm surges and waves, forces on
Highway Bridges; Part I: Specifications and Part
structures, and the role of erosion; the role of
II: Commentary and Appendices, were developed
beach nourishment in reducing wave energy
under the ATC/MCEER Joint Venture partnership
and crest height; building code requirements;
with funding from the Federal Highway
observations and interpretations of damage to
Administration. Available through the ATC
buildings, including the effect of debris acting
office. (Published 2003, Part I, 164 pages and
as missiles; and lifeline performance.
Part II, 294 pages)
ATC-45: The Field Manual, Safety Evaluation of
ABSTRACT: The Recommended Guidelines
Buildings After Wind Storms and Floods was
are based on significant enhancements in the
developed with funding from ATC, the ATC
state of knowledge and state of practice
Endowment Fund, and the Institute for Business
resulting from research investigations and
and Home Safety. Available through the ATC
lessons learned from earthquakes over the last
office. (Published 2004, 132 pages)
15 years. The Guidelines consist of
ABSTRACT: The Field Manual provides specifications, commentary, and appendices
guidelines and procedures to determine developed to be compatible with the existing
whether damaged or potentially damaged load-and-resistance-factor design (LRFD)
buildings are safe for use after wind storms or provisions for highway bridges published by
floods, or if entry should be restricted or the American Association of State Highway
prohibited. Formatted as an easy-to-use pocket and Transportation Officials (AASHTO). The
guide, the Manual is intended to be used by new, updated, provisions are nationally
structural engineers, building inspectors, and applicable and cover all seismic zones, as well
others involved in postdisaster building safety as all bridge construction types and materials.
assessments. Advice is provided on evaluating They reflect the latest design philosophies and
structural, geotechnical, and nonstructural design approaches that will result in highway
risks. Also included are procedures for Rapid bridges with a high level of seismic
Safety Evaluation, procedures for Detailed performance.
Safety Evaluation, information on how to deal
ATC-49-1: The document, Liquefaction Study
with owners and occupants of damaged
Report, Recommended LRFD Guidelines for the
buildings, information on field safety for those
Seismic Design of Highway Bridges, was
making damage assessments, and example
developed under the ATC/MCEER Joint Venture
applications of the procedures.
partnership with funding from the Federal
ATC-48 (ATC/SEAOC Joint Venture Training Highway Administration. Available through the
Curriculum): The training curriculum, Built to ATC office. (Published 2003, 208 pages)
Resist Earthquakes, The Path to Quality Seismic
ABSTRACT: This report documents a
Design and Construction for Architects,
comprehensive study of the effects of
Engineers, and Inspectors, was developed under a
liquefaction and the associated hazards —
contract with the California Seismic Safety
lateral spreading and flow. It contains detailed
Commission and prepared by a Joint Venture
discussions on: (1) recommended procedures
partnership of ATC and SEAOC. Available
to evaluate liquefaction potential and lateral
spread effects; (2) ground mitigation design
pages)
approaches and procedures to evaluate the

beneficial effects of pile pinning in straining hospital seismic safety regulation in
lateral spread; (3) study results from two California, (b) requirements for nonstructural
bridge sites (one in the western U. S. and one components in California and for buildings
in the central U. S.) that provide an assessment regulated by the Office of U. S. Foreign
of liquefaction effects based on several types Buildings, and (c) current seismic evaluation
of analyses; an assessment of implications of standards in the United States.
predicted lateral spread/flow using a pushover-
ATC-51-1: The report, Recommended U.S.-Italy
type analysis; and development and evaluation
Collaborative Procedures for Earthquake
of structural and/or geotechnical mitigation
Emergency Response Planning for Hospitals in
alternatives; and (4) study conclusions,
Italy, was developed under a contract with
including cost implications.
Servizio Sismico Nazionale of Italy (Italian
ATC-49-2: The report, Design Examples, National Seismic Survey, NSS). Available in
Recommended LRFD Guidelines for the Seismic English and Italian through the ATC office.
Design of Highway Bridges, was developed under (Published 2002, 120 pages)
the ATC/MCEER Joint Venture partnership with
funding from the Federal Highway ABSTRACT: The report addresses one of the
Administration. Available through the ATC short-term recommendations — planning for
office. (Published 2003, 316 pages) emergency response and postearthquake
inspection — made in the first phase of the
ABSTRACT: The report contains two design ATC-51 project. The report contains: (1)
examples that illustrate use of the descriptions of current procedures and
Recommended LRFD Guidelines for the concepts for emergency response planning in
Seismic Design of Highway Bridges. These the United States and Italy, (2) an overview of
design examples are the eighth and ninth in a relevant procedures for both countries for
series originally developed for the Federal evaluating and predicting the seismic
Highway Administration (FHWA) to illustrate vulnerability of buildings, including
the use of the American Association of State procedures for postearthquake inspection, (3)
Highway and Transportation Officials recommended procedures for earthquake
(AASHTO) Division 1-A Standard emergency response planning and
Specifications for Highway Bridges. The postearthquake assessment of hospitals, to be
design examples contain flow charts and implemented through the use of a
detailed step-by-step procedures, Postearthquake Inspection Notebook and
including: preliminary design; basic demonstrated through the application on two
requirements; determination of seismic design representative hospital facilities; and (4)
and analysis procedure; determination of recommendations for emergency response
elastic seismic forces and displacements; training, postearthquake inspection training,
determination of design forces; design and the mitigation of seismic hazards.
displacements and checks; design of structural
components; design of foundations; design of ATC-51-2: The report, Recommended U.S.-Italy
abutments; and consideration of liquefaction. Collaborative Guidelines for Bracing and
Anchoring Nonstructural Components in Italian
ATC-51: The report, U.S.-Italy Collaborative Hospitals, was developed under a contract with the
Recommendations for Improved Seismic Safety of Department of Civil Protection, Italy. Available in
Hospitals in Italy, was developed under a contract English and Italian through the ATC office.
with Servizio Sismico Nazionale of Italy (Italian (Published 2003, 164 pages)
National Seismic Survey). Available through the
ATC office. (Published 2000, 154 pages) ABSTRACT: The report supports one of the
short-term recommendations — implement
ABSTRACT: Developed by a 14-person team of bracing and anchorage for new installations of
hospital seismic safety specialists and nonstructural components — made in the first
regulators from the United States and Italy, the phase of the ATC-51 project. The report
report provides an overview of hospital contains: (1) technical background
seismic risk in Italy; six recommended short- information, including an overview of
term actions and four recommended long-term nonstructural component damage in prior
actions for improving hospital seismic safety earthquakes;(2) generalized recommendations
in Italy; and supplemental information on (a) for assessment of nonstructural components

and recommended performance objectives and ABSTRACT: The report addresses two main
requirements; (3) specific recommendations topics: (1) effective means for using
pertaining to twenty-seven different types of computer-generated ground motion maps
nonstructural components; (4) design (ShakeMaps) in postearthquake emergency
examples that illustrate in detail how a response; and (2) procedures for rapidly
structural engineer evaluates and designs the evaluating (on a near-real-time basis) strong-
retrofit of a nonstructural component; (5) motion data from ground sites and
additional seismic design considerations for instrumented buildings, bridges, and dams to
nonstructural components; and (6) guidance determine the potential for earthquake-induced
pertaining to the design and selection of damage in those structures. The document
devices for seismic anchorage. also provides guidance on the form, type, and
extent of data to be collected from structures
ATC-52: The project, “Development of a
in the vicinity of strong-motion recordings,
Community Action Plan for Seismic Safety
and pertinent supplemental information,
(CAPSS), City and County of San Francisco”, was
including guidance on replacement of strong-
conducted under a contract with the San Francisco
motion instruments in/on and near buildings,
Department of Building Inspection. Under Phase I,
bridges, and dams.
completed in 2000, ATC defined the tasks to be
conducted under Phase II, a multi-year ATC effort ATC-55: The report, FEMA 440, Improvement of
that commenced in 2001. The Phase II tasks Nonlinear Static Seismic Analysis Procedures, was
include: (1) development of a reliable estimate of developed under a contract with FEMA.
the size and nature of the impacts a large Available through FEMA or the ATC office.
earthquake will have on San Francisco; (2) (Published 2005, 152 pages)
development of technically sound consensus-based
ABSTRACT: The report presents the results of a
guidelines for the evaluation and repair of San
four year study carried out to develop
Francisco’s most vulnerable building types; and
guidelines for improved application of the
(3) identification, definition, and ranking of other
Coefficient Method, as detailed in the FEMA-
activities to reduce the seismic risks in the City
356 Prestandard and Commentary for the
and County of San Francisco.
Seismic Rehabilitation of Buildings, and the
ATC-53: The report, Assessment of the NIST 12- Capacity Spectrum Method, as detailed in the
Million-Pound (53 MN) Large-Scale Testing ATC-40 Report, Seismic Evaluation and
Facility, was developed under a contract with Retrofit of Concrete Buildings. The report
NIST. Available through the ATC office. also addresses improved application of
(Published 2000, 44 pages) nonlinear static analysis procedures in general,
including new procedures for incorporating
ABSTRACT: This report documents the
soil-structure interaction effects, and options
findings of an ATC Technical Panel engaged
for addressing multiple-degree-of-freedom
to assess the utility and viability of a 30-year-
effects. An example application of the
old, 12-million pound (53 MN) Universal
recommended nonlinear static analysis
Testing Machine located at NIST headquarters
procedures is included to illustrate use of the
in Gaithersburg, Maryland. Issues addressed
procedures in estimating the maximum
include: (a) the merits of continuing operation
displacement of a model building.
of the facility; (b) possible improvements or
modifications that would render it more useful ATC-56: The report, FEMA 389, Primer for
to the earthquake engineering community and Design Professionals: Communicating with
other potential large-scale structural research Owners and Managers of New Buildings on
communities; and (c) identification of specific Earthquake Risk, was developed under a contract
research (seismic and non-seismic) that might with FEMA. Available through FEMA or the
require the use of this facility in the future. ATC office. (Published 2004, 194 pages)
ATC-54: The report, Guidelines for Using ABSTRACT: The report has been developed to
Strong-Motion Data and ShakeMaps in facilitate the process of educating building
Postearthquake Response, was developed under a owners and managers about seismic risk
contract with the California Geological Survey. management tools that can be effectively and
Available through the ATC office. (Published economically employed by them during the
2005, 222 pages) building development phase—from site

selection through design and construction—as Two subject areas, with a total of five Program
well as the operational phase. Written Elements, are proposed: (1) systematic
principally for design professionals (architects support of the seismic code development
and structural engineers), the document process; and (2) improve seismic design and
introduces and discusses (1) seismic risk construction productivity.
management and the means to develop a risk
ATC-58: This project, Development of Next-
management plan; (2) guidance for identifying
and assessing earthquake-related hazards Generation Performance-Based Seismic Design
during the site selection process; (3) emerging Guidelines for New and Existing Buildings, is a
concepts in performance-based seismic multi-year, multi-phase effort funded by FEMA.
design; and (4) seismic design and Reports prepared under this project include:
performance issues related to six specific FEMA 445, Next-Generation Performance-
building occupancies—commercial office Based Seismic Design Guidelines, Program
facilities, commercial retail facilities, light Plan for New and Existing Buildings.
manufacturing facilities, healthcare facilities, (Published 2006, 131 pages, available through
local schools (kindergarten through grade 12), FEMA or the ATC office). This Program Plan
and higher education facilities (universities). offers background on current code design
ATC-56-1: The report, FEMA 427, Primer for procedures, introduces performance-based
Design of Commercial Buildings to Mitigate seismic design concepts, identifies
Terrorist Attacks – Providing Protection to People improvements needed in current seismic
and Buildings, was developed under a contract design practice, and outlines the tasks and
with FEMA. Available through FEMA or the projected costs for a two-phase program to
ATC office. (Published 2003, 106 pages) develop next-generation performance-based
seismic design procedures and guidelines.
ABSTRACT: The report provides guidance to
building designers, owners and state and local FEMA 461, Interim Testing Protocols for
governments to mitigate the effects of hazards Determining the Seismic Performance
resulting from terrorist attacks on new Characteristics of Structural and
buildings. While the guidance provided Nonstructural Components (Published 2007,
focuses principally on explosive attacks and 113 pages, available through FEMA or the
design strategies to mitigate the effects of ATC office). Two interim protocol types are
explosions, the document also addresses provided in this document: Interim Protocol I,
design strategies to mitigate the effects of Quasi-Static Cyclic Testing, which should be
chemical, biological and radiological attacks. used for the determination of performance
Qualitative discussions are provided on the characteristics of components whose behavior
following topics: terrorist threats; weapons is primarily controlled by the application of
effects, building damage, design approach, seismic forces or seismic-induced
design guidance, occupancy types, and cost displacements; and Interim Protocol II, Shake
considerations. Table Testing, which should be used to assess
performance characteristics of components
ATC-57: The report, The Missing Piece: whose behavior is affected by the dynamic
Improving Seismic Design and Construction response of the component itself, or whose
Practices, was developed under a contract with behavior is velocity sensitive, or sensitive to
NIST. Available through the ATC office. strain-rate effects.
ATC-60: The 2-volume report, SEAW
ABSTRACT: The report was developed to Commentary on Wind Code Provisions, Volume 1
provide a framework for eliminating the and Volume 2 - Example Problems, was developed
technology transfer gap that has emerged by the Structural Engineers Association of
within the National Earthquake Hazards Washington (SEAW) and edited and published by
Reduction Program (NEHRP) that limits the the Applied Technology Council. (ATC).
adaptation of basic research knowledge into Available through the ATC office. (Published
practice. The report defines a much-expanded 2004; Volume 1, 238 pages; Volume 2, 245 pages)
problem-focused knowledge development,
synthesis and transfer program to improve ABSTRACT: Written for designers, building
seismic design and construction practices. code officials, instructors and anyone who

designs and/or analyzes structures for wind, assess the performance of physical structures
this report provides commentary on the wind along the U. S. Gulf Coast during Hurricane
provisions in the 2000 and 2003 editions of Katrina and Hurricane Rita in 2005. The
the International Building Code (IBC), and the report provides documentation of
1998 and 2002 editions of ASCE Standard No. environmental conditions (wind speed, storm
7, Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and surge, and flooding) and observed damage to
Other Structures. Volume 1 contains the main major buildings, infrastructure and residential
body of the commentary, including a technical structures. Twenty-three recommendations
and historic overview of wind codes and are provided pertaining to: (1) needed
discussions on a broad range of topics: basic improvements in design and construction
wind speed; importance factors; exposure and practice; (2) needed improvements in
topographic effects; gust response; design for standards and codes; and (3) needed further
wind pressures on main wind-force-resisting study, research, and development.
systems; wind pressures on components and
ATC-72: The report, Proceedings of Workshop
cladding of structures; glass and glazing;
on Tall Building Seismic Design and Analysis
prescriptive provisions; miscellaneous and
Issues, was prepared for the Building Seismic
non-building structures; unusual wind loading
Safety Council of the National Institute of
configurations; high winds, hurricanes, and
Building Sciences, with funding provided by
tornadoes; serviceability; wind tunnel tests
FEMA. Available through the ATC office.
applied to design practice; and wind design of
equipment and non-building systems. Volume
2 consists of appendices containing over a ABSTRACT: This report presents the results of
dozen example problems with solutions. a Workshop on Tall Building Seismic Design
ATC-61: The 2-volume report, Natural Hazard and Analysis Issues that was conducted in San
Mitigation Saves: An Independent Study to Assess Francisco in January 2007. It includes a
the Future Savings from Mitigation Activities, prioritized list of the most important tall
Volume 1 – Findings, Conclusions, and building modeling and acceptance criteria
Recommendations, and Volume 2 – Study issues needing resolution, based on the
Documentation, was prepared by the Applied opinions of practitioners, regulators, and
Technology Council for the Multihazard researchers actively involved in the design,
Mitigation Council of the National Institute of permitting, and construction of tall buildings.
Building Sciences, with funding provided by ATC-73: The report, Prioritized Research for
FEMA. Available through MMC or the ATC Reducing the Seismic Hazards of Existing
office. (Published 2005; Volume 1, 11 pages; Buildings, was developed under a grant from NSF.
Volume 2, 366 pages) Available through the ATC office. (Published
ABSTRACT: This report presents the results of 2007, 16 pages)
an independent study to assess the future ABSTRACT: This report was developed
savings from hazard mitigation activities specifically for individuals and institutions
showing that funding spent on reducing the planning to submit proposals in response to
risk of natural hazards is a sound investment. the NSF program solicitation for research
Volume 1 contains an overview of the study using the George E. Brown, Jr. Network for
and its findings and conclusions. Volume 2 Earthquake Engineering Simulation (NEES).
contains a detailed description of the benefit- It includes a prioritized list of research needs
cost analysis methods, data collection, based on consensus developed during a
processing, studies, and results. National Earthquake Hazards Reduction
ATC-70: The report, NIST Technical Note 1476, Program (NEHRP) Workshop on Meeting the
Performance of Physical Structures in Hurricane Challenges of Existing Buildings, conducted
Katrina and Hurricane Rita: A Reconnaissance in San Francisco in September 2007.
Report, was developed under a contract with ATC-74: The report, Collaborative
NIST. Available through NIST. (Published 2006, Recommended Requirements for Automatic
222 pages) Natural Gas Shutoff Valves in Italy, was funded by
ABSTRACT: This report describes the findings the Department of Civil Protection, Italy.
of the NIST-led reconnaissance effort to Available through the ATC office. (Published
2007; 76 pages)

ABSTRACT: This report contains: (1) technical It also stimulated widespread interest in
background information pertaining to the use laboratory testing of wood-frame structures.
of automatic natural shutoff valves as a means
ATC Design Guide 1: The report, Minimizing
for seismic hazard mitigation, including the
Floor Vibration, was developed with funding from
development of requirements in ASCE
ATC’s Henry J. Degenkolb Memorial Endowment
Standard 25-97, Earthquake-Actuated
Fund. Available through the ATC office.
Automatic Gas Shutoff Devices; (2) a brief
(Published, 1999, 64 pages)
review of considerations and actions in the
United States related to assuring adequate ABSTRACT: Design Guide 1 provides guidance
natural gas safety in earthquakes; (3) an on design and retrofit of floor structures to
assessment of issues related to the adoption of limit transient vibrations to acceptable levels.
ASCE 25-97 as a standard for earthquake The document includes guidance for
actuated automatic gas shutoff devices in estimating floor vibration properties and
Italy; (4) a summary and recommendations; example calculations for a variety of currently
and (5) appendices containing example U.S. used floor types and designs. The criteria for
jurisdiction ordinances pertaining to gas acceptable levels of floor vibration are based
shutoff valves and related information. on human sensitivity to the vibration, whether
it is caused by human behavior or machinery
ATC-R-1: The report, Cyclic Testing of Narrow
in the structure.
Plywood Shear Walls, was developed with funding
from the Henry J. Degenkolb Memorial ATC TechBrief 1: The ATC TechBrief 1,
Endowment Fund of the Applied Technology Liquefaction Maps, was developed under a
Council. Available through the ATC office contract with the United States Geological Survey.
(Published 1995, 64 pages) Available through the ATC office. (Published
1996, 12 pages)
ABSTRACT: This report documents ATC's first
self-directed research program: a series of ABSTRACT: The technical brief inventories
static and dynamic tests of narrow plywood and describes the available regional
wall panels having the standard 3.5-to-1 liquefaction hazard maps in the United States
height-to-width ratio and anchored to the sill and gives information on how to obtain them.
plate using typical bolted, 9-inch, 5000-lb.
ATC TechBrief 2: The ATC TechBrief 2,
capacity hold-down devices. The report
Earthquake Aftershocks − Entering Damaged
provides a description of the testing program
Buildings, was developed under a contract with the
and a summary of results, including
United States Geological Survey. Available
comparisons of drift ratios found during
testing with those specified in the seismic
pages)
provisions of the 1991 Uniform Building
Code. The report served as a catalyst for ABSTRACT: The technical brief offers
changes in code-specified aspect ratios for guidelines for entering damaged buildings
narrow plywood wall panels and for new under emergency conditions during the first
thinking in the design of hold-down devices. hours and days after the initial damaging
event.

Directors
ATC Board of Directors (1973-Present)

Milton A. Abel (1979-1985) Ephraim G. Hirsch (1983-1984)
James C. Anderson (1978-1981) William T. Holmes* (1983-1987)
Thomas G. Atkinson* (1988-1994) Warner Howe (1977-1980)
Steven M. Baldridge (2000-2003) Edwin T. Huston* (1990-1997)
Albert J. Blaylock (1976-1977) David Hutchinson (2004-2010)
David C. Breiholz (2004-2006) Jeremy Isenberg (2002-2005)
Patrick Buscovich* (2000-2009) Paul C. Jennings (1973-1975)
James R. Cagley* (1998-2004) Carl B. Johnson (1974-1976)
H. Patrick Campbell (1989-1990) Edwin H. Johnson (1988-1989, 1998-2001)
Arthur N. L. Chiu* (1996-2002) Stephen E. Johnston* (1973-1975, 1979-1980)
Anil Chopra (1973-1974) Christopher P. Jones* (2001-2008)
Richard Christopherson* (1976-1980) Joseph Kallaby* (1973-1975)
Lee H. Cliff (1973) Donald R. Kay (1989-1992)
John M. Coil* (1986-1987, 1991-1997) T. Robert Kealey* (1984-1988)
Eugene E. Cole (1985-1986) H. S. (Pete) Kellam (1975-1976)
Anthony B. Court (2001-2004) Helmut Krawinkler (1979-1982)
Edwin T. Dean* (1996-2002) Steven Kuan (2006-2009)
Robert G. Dean (1996-2001) James S. Lai (1982-1985)
James M. Delahay* (1999-2005) Mark H. Larsen (2003-2006)
Gregory G. Deierlein (2003-2009) Gerald D. Lehmer (1973-1974)
Edward F. Diekmann (1978-1981) Marc L. Levitan (2006-2009)
Burke A. Draheim (1973-1974) James R. Libby (1992-1998)
John E. Droeger (1973) Charles Lindbergh (1989-1992)
Nicholas F. Forell* (1989-1996) R. Bruce Lindermann (1983-1986)
Douglas A. Foutch (1993-1997) L. W. Lu (1987-1990)
Paul Fratessa (1991-1992) Walter B. Lum (1975-1978)
Sigmund A. Freeman (1986-1989) Kenneth A. Luttrell (1991-1999)
Ramon Gilsanz (2005-2011) Newland J. Malmquist (1997-2001)
Barry J. Goodno (1986-1989) Melvyn H. Mark (1979-1982)
Mark R. Gorman (1984-1987) John A. Martin (1978-1982)
Melvyn Green (2001-2002) Stephen McReavy (1973)
Lawrence G. Griffis* (2002-2008) John F. Meehan* (1973-1978)
Gerald H. Haines (1981-1982, 1984-1985) Andrew T. Merovich* (1996-2003)
William J. Hall (1985-1986) David L. Messinger (1980-1983)
Ronald O. Hamburger (1999-2000) Bijan Mohraz (1991-1997)
Robert W. Hamilton (2002-2005) William W. Moore* (1973-1976)
James R. Harris* (2004-2010) Manuel Morden (2006-2009)
Gary C. Hart (1975-1978) Ugo Morelli (2004-2006)
Robert H. Hendershot (2000-2001) Gary Morrison (1973)
Lyman Henry (1973) Robert Morrison (1981-1984)
Richard L. Hess (2000-2003) Ronald F. Nelson (1994-1995)
James A. Hill (1992-1995; 2003-2004) Joseph P. Nicoletti* (1975-1979)
Ernest C. Hillman, Jr. (1973-1974) Bruce C. Olsen* (1978-1982)
Eve Hinman (2002-2008) Gerard Pardoen (1987-1991)
ATC-69 ATC Directors F-1

Stephen H. Pelham* (1998-2005) Howard Simpson* (1980-1984)
Norman D. Perkins (1973-1976) Robert Smilowitz (2008-2011)
Richard J. Phillips (1997-2000) Thomas L. Smith (2008-2011)
Maryann T. Phipps (1995-1996, 1999-2002) Mete Sozen (1990-1993)
Sherrill Pitkin (1984-1987) William E. Staehlin (2002-2003)
Edward V. Podlack (1973) Scott Stedman (1996-1997)
Christopher D. Poland (1984-1987) Donald R. Strand (1982-1983)
Egor P. Popov (1976-1979) James L. Stratta (1975-1979)
Robert F. Preece* (1987-1993) Edward J. Teal (1976-1979)
H. John Price (2004-2010) W. Martin Tellegen (1973)
Lawrence D. Reaveley* (1985-1991, 2000-2003) John C. Theiss* (1991-1998)
Philip J. Richter* (1986-1989) Charles H. Thornton* (1992-2000, 2005-2011)
John M. Roberts (1973) James L. Tipton (1973)
James Robinson (2005-2008) Ivan Viest (1975-1977)
Charles Roeder (1997-2000) Ajit S. Virdee* (1977-1980, 1981-1985)
Spencer Rogers (2007-2010) J. John Walsh (1987-1990)
Arthur E. Ross* (1985-1991, 1993-1994) Robert S. White (1990-1991)
C. Mark Saunders* (1993-2000) James A. Willis* (1980-1981, 1982-1986)
Walter D. Saunders* (1975-1979) Thomas D. Wosser (1974-1977)
Wilbur C. Schoeller (1990-1991) Loring A. Wyllie (1987-1988)
Samuel Schultz* (1980-1984) Edwin G. Zacher (1981-1984)
Lawrence G. Selna (1981-1984) Theodore C. Zsutty (1982-1985)
Daniel Shapiro* (1977-1981) *President
Joseph B. Shepard (2008-2011)
Jonathan G. Shipp (1996-1999)
ATC Executive Directors (1973-Present)

Ronald Mayes (1979-1981) Roland L. Sharpe (1973-1979)
Christopher Rojahn (1981-present)
F-2 ATC Directors ATC-69

Sponsors, Supporters, and Contributors
Sponsors Contributors
Structural Engineers Association of California Daniel & Lois R. Shapiro
Charles H. Thornton Hinman Consulting Engineers
John M. Coil Omar D. Cardona
Degenkolb Engineers Computers & Structures, Inc.
Burkett & Wong Lawrence D. Reaveley
James R. & Sharon K. Cagley American Institute of Steel Construction, Inc.
Sang Whan Han Magnusson Klemencic Associates
Walter P. Moore & Associates John C. Theiss
Nabih Youssef & Associates Baldridge & Associates
Raj and Helen Desai
Supporters Lionakis Beaumont Design Group
Miyamoto International
Rutherford & Chekene
Structon
Nishkian Menninger
Weidlinger Associates
Patrick Buscovich & Associates
William Bevier Structural Engineer, Inc.
Barrish, Pelham & Partners
Edwin T. Huston
Baker Concrete Construction
Cagley & Associates
Cagley, Harman & Associates
CBI Consulting, Inc.
Gilsanz Murray Steficek LLP

SOAReport

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

SOAReport

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

SOAReport

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

ATC 69

Reducing the Risks of Nonstructural

Applied Technology Council

Reducing the Risks of

TASK ORDER CONTRACT MANAGEMENT SUBJECT MATTER EXPERT

February 29, 2008

In September of 2006, under its ongoing “Seismic and Multi-Hazard

FEMA 74 explains the sources of earthquake damage that can occur in

ATC gratefully acknowledges the ATC-69 Project Management Committee,

ATC also gratefully acknowledges Cathleen Carlisle (FEMA Project

ATC-69 Preface iii

Jon A. Heintz Christopher Rojahn

List of Figures ............................................................................................... vii

List of Tables ................................................................................................. ix

1 Introduction ..................................................................................... 1-1

2 Global Context for Nonstructural Issues......................................... 2-1

3 Nonstructural Damage Data Collected from Past Earthquakes ...... 3-1

4 Code Requirements for Nonstructural Components and

5 Current Practice for Seismic Design and Installation of Nonstructural

ATC-69 Table of Contents v

7 Nonproprietary Details and Other Resources for Nonstructural

8 Proprietary Details and Products for the Protection of

9 Recent and Ongoing Research and Development on

10 Future Needs ................................................................................. 10-1

Appendix A Log of Reported Nonstructural Earthquake

Appendix B List of Resources Related to Nonstructural

References ................................................................................................... C-1

Project Participants ...................................................................................... D-1

Applied Technology Council Projects and Report Information .................. E-1

Applied Technology Council Directors .......................................................F-1

vi Table of Contents ATC-69

ATC-69 List of Figures vii

Table A-1 Log of Reported Nonstructural Earthquake

Table B-1 Codes and Standards Related to Nonstructural

Table B-2 Guidance Documents Related to Nonstructural

Table B-3 Nonproprietary Details and Other Resources for

Table B-4 Proprietary Details and Products for the Protection of

Table B-5 Recent and Ongoing Research Related to Nonstructural

ATC-69 List of Tables ix

Information contained in this report is the result of interviews with architects,

The purpose of this report is to: (1) assess current knowledge

This report is organized as follows:

ATC-69 1: Introduction 1-1

Appendices Reference tables containing expanded lists of nonstructural

1-2 1: Introduction ATC-69

In developed countries, or areas where codes addressing seismic issues have

The structural system of an engineered building in the United States typically

ATC-69 2: Global Context for Nonstructural Issues 2-1

Performance-Based Earthquake Engineering (PBEE), and the future of

2-2 2: Global Context for Nonstructural Issues ATC-69

Every earthquake that resulted in building damage has also resulted in

The Modified Mercalli Scale (MMI) of 1931 defines intensity on a scale of

3.2 Problems with Collection of Nonstructural

The Earthquake Engineering Research Institute (EERI) and other

ATC-69 3: Nonstructural Damage Data 3-1

In a building with minor structural damage and major nonstructural damage,

Most detailed earthquake reconnaissance efforts have been devoted to

Detailed earthquake reconnaissance efforts are also time consuming and

3-2 3: Nonstructural Damage Data ATC-69

Bachman (2004) suggests that we have reached a point where nonstructural